common-get-archive-item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Gets a list,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify critical details like whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what the output format is (e.g., pagination, error handling), or if it's a safe operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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, straightforward sentence: 'Gets a list of items found in the specified archive.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by hinting at the tool's scope or output.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, authentication), output format, and differentiation from sibling tools. For a tool that likely interacts with archives in a system, this minimal description leaves too much ambiguity for an agent to use it effectively.

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, providing clear details for all four parameters (archive, database, itemId, identity). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already states (e.g., it does not explain relationships between parameters or usage examples). Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 states the tool 'Gets a list of items found in the specified archive,' which clearly indicates a read operation (verb 'gets') on a resource ('items in archive'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'common-get-archive' (which might retrieve archive metadata) or 'common-restore-archive-item' (which likely restores items), leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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. For example, it does not specify if this is for listing archived items versus retrieving them individually, or how it differs from tools like 'common-restore-archive-item' or 'common-remove-archive-item.' Without such context, an agent must 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.