common-get-archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Gets' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it retrieves metadata or full archives, if it's safe or has side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'gets' entails (e.g., list vs. retrieve), return values, or error handling. For a tool in a large sibling set with potential nuances, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions for 'name' and 'database'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Gets Sitecore database archives' clearly states the action (gets) and resource (Sitecore database archives), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'common-get-archive-item' or 'common-restore-archive-item', leaving ambiguity about what specific archives are retrieved versus individual items or restoration operations.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'common-get-archive-item' for individual items, 'common-restore-archive-item' for restoration), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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