check_collection_archive_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavior disclosure. It transparently states it scans and reports rather than mutates, and details the exact statuses and thresholds it will surface ('ARCHIVING stuck >24h', 'FAILED_TO_ARCHIVE'). The main gap is not explicitly stating that it is read-only, but 'scan and report' strongly implies non-destructive behavior.

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 that leads with the main action and then uses a colon to enumerate specifics. Every clause adds meaningful detail without 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 one paramer, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives most essential context: it reports grouped statuses, flags an age threshold, and identifies failed assets. It does not describe output formatting or error conditions, but the enumerations of report contents cover the primary needs for calling the tool.

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 100%, so the sole parameter collection_id is fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable baseline when the schema alreadx covers everything.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan a collection') and a specific resource ('collection') with a clear objective: 'report archive health'. It then enumerates concrete deliverables: grouping by archive_status, flagging ARCHIVING stuck >24h, and listing FAILED_TO_ARCHIVE assets. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling list/get tools.

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 implies this tool is for checking archive health of a collection, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no sibling archive-health tool, so context is reasonably clear, but the guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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