List archived items

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal context by noting the feed is 'bounded' and 'mixed', which hints at pagination and heterogeneous content. However, it does not disclose details about ordering, result limits, or search behavior beyond those terms.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning ('bounded', 'mixed', 'Archive feed'), with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool, the description provides the essential scope (archive, mixed types) but remains incomplete given there is no output schema and the 'search' parameter is unexplained. The presence of good annotations reduces the need for safety disclosures, but return format and filtering behavior are still unspecified.

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 has one optional parameter 'search' with maxLength 200, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the 'search' parameter at all, leaving its purpose (e.g., filtering the archive feed) undocumented. Since there is no other parameter information, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb 'List' and specifies the resource: the 'bounded mixed Archive feed' containing Tasks, Notes, and Checklists. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tasks and list_notes by emphasizing the archived and mixed nature.

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 implies usage for retrieving archived items, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other list tools (e.g., list_inbox_items, list_planning_items). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the guidance to rely on the tool's name and the term 'Archive feed'.

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