retrieveMachineActivityArchive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond basic functionality by stating the required scope ('machines:read') and marking it as '[READ-ONLY]', which clarifies safety and permission needs. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, preventing a higher score.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: it states the purpose, specifies the API endpoint, notes the required scope, and indicates read-only behavior. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient 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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, scope, and safety, but lacks an output schema, so it doesn't explain return values like archive status details. For a read-only tool with simple inputs, this is a minor gap.

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, with the 'jobId' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the job ID's origin or format. Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('machine activity archive status'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'listStations' or 'listMachineTypes', which might also involve machine-related data retrieval, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 by specifying a required scope ('machines:read') and referencing a job ID, suggesting it's for checking archive status after a job. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listMachineTypes' or general data retrieval tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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