get_archive_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but adds no context about potential side effects, rate limits, or output format. For a simple read operation this is minimally adequate, but it lacks any detailed behavioral transparency.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy, waste, or unnecessary detail. It directly states the tool's purpose in under 10 words.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the caller receives, but it does not mention the return format or structure. The tool has multiple parameters and enums, yet the description offers no guidance on how to construct a valid request beyond what the schema already provides. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all 5 parameters, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds no extra semantic meaning about how parameters relate to each other (e.g., deviceId required for Device scope), but this is already 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 the tool retrieves historical archive data for a time period, which distinguishes it from the realtime sibling tools. However, it is somewhat generic in not specifying the kind of archive data or the context of the device, though the schema fills in the details.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'historical' implies it should be used for past data rather than realtime, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools or mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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