travaso_archivio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the archive never empties, which describes the archive's persistence, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what the response looks like. The description adds context about the archive but not about the operation's 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?

Two short sentences with no extraneous information. The purpose and usage are front-loaded, making it very concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a clear purpose and usage context, but it does not explain how it differs from sibling 'travaso_cerca', what 'travaso' refers to, or what the response looks like. This is incomplete for an agent to correctly select and call the tool among siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention 'query' or 'limit' at all. While 'query' is self-explanatory from its name, 'limit' is not explained, and the agent gets no additional meaning beyond the schema's names and types.

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 states a clear action ('Cerca' – search) on a specific resource ('archivio originale' – original archive) and adds a distinctive trait ('non si svuota mai' – never empties). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'travaso_cerca', which likely also performs searches, so the differentiation is only partial.

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 provides an explicit usage context: 'Da usare solo per ricordare qualcosa dopo il travaso' (use only to remember something after the transfer). This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. The context is clear enough to guide selection.

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