ashby_list_archive_reasons

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the required API key permission ('hiringProcessMetadataRead') and explicitly states that the output contains reasons to pass to ashby_archive_application. It also documents the response structure, which is important since no output schema is provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-front-loaded, stating the core action first, then usage context, permission requirements, and response format. Every sentence adds necessary information without repetition or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing endpoint, the description is complete: it states purpose, when to use it, permission requirements, and the exact response fields. No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the fields (id, text, reasonType).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing on the parameter side, and the description reasonably focuses on the output and usage instead.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the operation: list available archive/rejection reasons. It distinguishes itself by positioning the tool as a prerequisite for ashby_archive_application and by specifying the output shape, so an agent understands exactly what it returns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use it 'as the first step when archiving a candidate', which is clear contextual guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name any alternative list tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.