list_archived_documents

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns a formatted string, which is minimal additional context. With annotations present, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not deeply elaborate on behavior.

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 brief and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, bullet list of use cases, and a line about the return value. No extraneous content; each part earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It could specify if the list is limited to the current workspace or user, but the scope is implied. With an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter details. According to guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description's mention of return format adds nominal value.

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The description clearly states 'Displays all documents that have been archived.' and enumerates specific use cases, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_trash and list_collections by focusing on archived documents.

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 lists explicit use cases (find, review, identify for unarchiving, check status), providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, preventing a top score.

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