list_archive_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the ordering (newest first) and that path info is omitted, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or require any permissions. This leaves ambiguity about side effects or safety.

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?

Two well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states what the tool does and the output structure, second sentence provides a key constraint (no path info) and usage hint.

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 simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description adequately explains the output fields and ordering. It lacks details about error handling or pagination, but for a list tool this is largely sufficient. The schema covers the parameter.

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 fully describes the 'limit' parameter (type, bounds, default, description). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'archived recording sessions', and specifies the contents of each entry (id, date, transcript, wordCount, engine, hasAudio, hasVideo). It distinguishes from siblings like search_archives and read_archive_entry by mentioning the link to read_archive and delete_archive_entry.

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 explicitly notes that path information is not returned and that the opaque id should be used with read_archive or delete_archive_entry, guiding the agent on how to process the output. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like search_archives for advanced filtering.

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