read_archive_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that responses can be large (MBs) without metadataOnly, describes the return format ({ ok, present, mimeType, base64 } or { ok, present: false }), and notes default mediaType. However, it does not cover error cases (e.g., invalid id) or other behaviors like rate limits.

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 sentences: first states purpose and options, second explains return behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and main parameters. It mentions large payloads and the present flag. Missing error handling details, but overall sufficient for a read-only tool with good parameter descriptions.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that mediaType selects audio/video with default 'audio', and metadataOnly skips base64 payload. It also clarifies the return shape, providing useful context for parameter effects.

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 tool returns an archive entry's metadata and optionally base64 media bytes, specifying the mediaType and metadataOnly parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_archive_entries and delete_archive_entry by focusing on reading a single entry's details.

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 implies usage after obtaining an entry ID from list_archive_entries, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives parameter guidance (using metadataOnly to avoid large payloads) but lacks broader usage context.

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