Bus Archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that archiving prevents the session from closing and warns against misusing it to silence reminders. However, it does not state whether the action is reversible, if permissions are required, or any other side effects beyond the blocking behavior. It gives some behavioral context but lacks full transparency for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 two sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the usage caution following. It is efficient and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it an excellent example of concise and well-structured documentation.

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 is simple with only two parameters and an output schema present. The description covers its core purpose, the reason behind it (Stop hook), and the correct usage pattern. It does not mention any prerequisites or limitations beyond the caution, but for its simplicity the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 both parameters (message_id and state) are already documented with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what's in the schema; it only implies that state may be 'done' or 'read' via the caution about 'genuinely handled.' Since the schema already covers the semantics, the description adds minimal value, placing it at the baseline of 3.

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 specific action (file away/archive) on a specific resource (a message) and clearly conveys the purpose: to stop the message from blocking session close. This distinguishes it from siblings like bus_read or bus_send, which serve different functions. The phrase 'File a message away' is unambiguous.

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 a clear rule for when to use the tool: 'archive each message once it is genuinely handled' and explicitly cautions against using it 'to silence the reminder.' This is actionable and prevents misuse, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with other tools. The context of the Stop hook counts pending messages reinforces the appropriate timing.

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