Lister les archives (CPT)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by indicating what data is included in the archive listing and how the returned ID relates to the history, going beyond the annotation-only picture.

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 compact, front-loaded with the resource name, and each sentence adds distinct information: what is listed, key fields, and the ID's role in history. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only list call with one required parameter, the description covers the resource, key output fields, and the ID's semantic meaning. The absence of pagination or ordering notes is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% and the only parameter, siteId, is already documented as an encoded hashid. The description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Lister') and a clearly identified resource ('archives (CPT)'), then details what the archive entries contain (slug, import exclusion, published pages). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listPages and listCategories by naming CPT archives as the target.

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 clear context by identifying the resource as site content type archives and explicitly ties the ID to the history mechanism ('L'ID sert de cpt_id dans l'historique'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource scope is sufficiently clear.

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