List archive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description adds no context beyond the name itself: no note on scope, ordering, nesting, or how archive differs from trash. It is effectively a tautology against the title 'List archive'.

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?

It is a single five-word fragment with no waste, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. It is front-loaded only in the sense that there is nothing else to front-load.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only place to explain what this returns and how it relates to list_trash and list_nodes. It leaves the archive-vs-trash distinction entirely unaddressed, which is the single most important ambiguity for this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter information is present.

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 phrase identifies the resource (archived nodes of the project) and implies a listing operation, but it is a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as list_trash or list_nodes, so an agent cannot tell archive apart from trash from this text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of what state counts as 'archived', and no pointer to alternatives like list_trash or search_nodes. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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