list_archived_sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=truecars, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: these archives are created by delete_site, are sorted newest first, and their filenames are directly consumable by restore_site. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 efficient sentences front-load the core purpose and ordering, then immediately explain the downstream integration with restore_site. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

With an output schema, a single well-documented optional parameter, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to list, the order, and how the result is used by restore_site. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema description covers the single optional domain parameter at 100%, so the baseline applies. The description does not add details about the domain filter, but it doesn't need to because the schema already documents it clearly.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource ('archived nginx configs'), and clarifies the origin ('created by delete_site'). It also gives ordering ('newest first'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_sites and makes the tool's role obvious.

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 clearly connects this tool to restore_site: filenames from this output feed into restore_site's archive_filename to restore a specific archive. It strongly implies when to use this tool over list_sites, though it does not explicitly state a negative condition like 'use list_sites for active sites.'

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