status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the return structure and that active_captures reflects background jobs holding the capture lock, which is real behavioral context. However, it never states that this is a non-mutating read, nor any auth or cost characteristics, so it only partially covers the no-annotation gap.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by compact Args/Returns blocks; every line is informative. The pseudo-header formatting is slightly heavier than needed for such a small surface, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned dict fields (totals, per-channel rows with id/name/msgs/watermark, active_captures). For a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete, lacking only an explicit read-only assurance.

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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'channel: optional channel ID/URL to show only that channel' explains both optionality and acceptable forms. That is meaningful beyond the schema's bare anyOf string/null.

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 opens with a specific resource and scope: 'Archive status: total messages, per-channel watermark and counts.' That is a concrete verb+resource and clearly distinct from siblings like export, capture, recent, or search. It stops short of naming an alternative, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus siblings such as channels, servers, or recent. The channel argument implies a narrowing use case, but the agent is left to infer that this is the read-only inspection tool for archive progress.

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