archived_memories

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

The description discloses the tool's purpose (listing archived memories) and provides context about what 'archived' means. Annotations give readOnlyHint=false, implying possible side effects, but the description contradicts this by indicating a read-only operation. Still, the description adds value beyond annotations.

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 short, efficient, and front-loaded, with no wasted words. The action guide is separated, but the overall structure is clear.

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 has an output schema and one optional parameter. The description explains when to use it and what 'archived' means, but omits details about the limit parameter, which is important for controlling output.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all, failing to compensate for the lack of documentation 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 states 'List archived memories' and explains what 'archived' means (soft-deleted or automatically archived), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_memories'.

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 ACTION GUIDE explicitly provides a use case: 'to view memories that have been soft-deleted or automatically archived due to low importance/recency'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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