list_memory_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation (listing entries) and specifies the caller_agent_id is required. However, it does not mention any side effects, performance implications, or details about the archived state, leaving some gaps for a tool that might have subtle behaviors.

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 concise, using a short Japanese sentence followed by structured Args/Returns. It avoids fluff and clearly separates parameter details and return structure, making it easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, list operation) and the presence of an output schema (mentioned in context), the description adequately covers the necessary information: purpose, usage constraint, parameter explanations, and return format. The sibling tools context shows many memory-related tools, but this one's purpose is sufficiently unique.

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 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining limit as 'max number of results with default 50' and caller_agent_id as 'required'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's raw types and defaults.

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 clearly states it retrieves archived memory entries ('アーカイブされたメモリエントリ一覧を取得する'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_memory_entries (likely non-archived) or search_memory_archive, the term 'archive' in the tool name and description provides sufficient distinction.

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 includes an important usage constraint: only Owner and Admin can use this tool. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_memory_entries or search_memory_archive, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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