archive_stats

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states 'report' (read-only), but no mention of side effects, required state (e.g., archive existence), or idempotency. The description is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral detail.

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?

A single sentence of 10 words conveys the essential purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no redundant information.

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?

Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool reports. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., whether it covers all archives or a specific one), which could be clarified.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the output contains archive size, date coverage, transaction count, and earliest/latest dates, clarifying what the tool returns.

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 tool reports archive size and date coverage (transaction count, earliest/latest). It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('archive stats'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'spending_summary' or 'net_worth_history'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, its unique focus on archive stats implies usage context; it is distinct from other reporting tools. A note on prerequisites or when not to use would improve clarity.

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