type_archive.get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states a 'get' operation without clarifying whether it reads from local storage, fetches via network, or requires any specific state (e.g., an open session). It does not describe side effects, performance implications, or error conditions.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, which is appropriate for a simple retrieval operation. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the single-sentence description is insufficient to fully specify how to correctly invoke this tool within the context of 100+ sibling tools. The agent would struggle to understand the required input format and expected return value.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no additional meaning for the parameters 'session_id' or 'type_archive_id'. The agent has no guidance on what valid values look like or how to obtain them (e.g., from session.open or type_archive.list).

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 'Get one tracked type archive' uses a clear verb ('Get') and specifies the resource ('one tracked type archive'), indicating a retrieval operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like type_archive.create, type_archive.list, or type_archive.pull, and leaves the meaning of 'tracked' ambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as type_archive.list (to list archives) or type_archive.open (to open an archive). No context for prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions is given.

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