wb_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it explicitly declares the tool is read-only safe and visible in readonly profiles. It also discloses non-obvious behavior such as 'detect' falling back to material summaries when no LLM is available and 'gen' being a passthrough script.

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 dense but well-organized, using semicolon-separated subcommand definitions and one clear usage sentence. It avoids fluff, though the opening parenthetical 'P4 · dt_mkq335' adds some domain jargon that could be trimmed without losing functional meaning.

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 multi-subcommand read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers all subcommands, their semantics, an example, the critical read-only guarantee, and a concrete situational use case. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by specifying the valid first words for the command parameter (archive list/show/gen/detect) and giving a concrete invocation example. The args and confirm parameters are already fully documented in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as the read-only memory archive domain and enumerates the exact command family (list/show/gen/detect). It also provides concrete examples like 'archive show 顾铭' and distinguishes itself from sibling write tools by stating '只读安全' and 'readonly profile 可见'.

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 gives explicit usage context: '会话开场可 archive list 查看、archive show 读取' tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It also explains each subcommand's purpose. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools.

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