ktalk_list_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses pagination ('reads the whole window client-side across all pages'), that it returns the full result in one call (vs sibling), and the auth requirement (personal API key only). It could mention error behavior or rate limits, but the key behaviors are covered.

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?

Compact, front-loaded summary, then a key behavioral distinction, then a concise Args section. No 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?

With an output schema present ad no annotations, the description covers auth, pagination behavior, and all parameter semantics. Complete enough for an agent to call 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 0%, so the description must describe parameters. It does so: from_date/to_date as ISO 8601 window, room_names as optional filter, format as 'raw' or 'markdown'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though not exhaustively (e.g., date format specifics, markdown structure).

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 verb ('List'), resource ('archived meetings'), and scope (date window), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool ktalk_list_recordings by noting it returns the full result in one call. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable.

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 a clear usage context: for archived meetings within a date range, with a personal API key. It contrasts with ktalk_list_recordings on the pagination behavior, which helps an agent choose between them. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the sibling comparison implies differentiation.

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