todoist_archived_projects_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action (list archived projects) but does not disclose pagination behavior, read-only nature, or potential performance implications. The description lacks behavioral detail beyond the name.

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 extremely concise with two relevant sentences. Every word serves a purpose: the first states the action, the second explains the usage context. No wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should hint at the return format (e.g., list of project objects). It does not mention pagination behavior, fields returned, or any limitations. For a tool with no annotations, more context is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit and offset parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what is in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a list of all archived projects' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like todoist_project_get (single active project) and todoist_project_archive (archive action). However, the phrase 'all' slightly conflicts with pagination (limit/offset), slightly reducing clarity.

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 adds 'Useful for reviewing or restoring archived projects,' which gives context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'For a single project, use todoist_project_get') or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied but not thorough.

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