Archive: Term Sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the archive contains not-yet-published terms, which changes how an agent should interpret results.

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 tight sentences, filter behavior first, the key archive caveat second. 'Critically' is slightly editorial but the content earns its space; nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, filters and the key unpublished-terms insight, leaving only limit/pagination behavior unaddressed, which is a minor gap.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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does mention term, branch, course code and instructor, giving each a filtering role. It omits the limit parameter entirely and provides no format guidance (e.g. term string shape), so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (archived term sections), plus the filter axes. However, it does not differentiate itself from the very close sibling archive_search_sections, so an agent must still infer which of the two archive-sections tools to pick.

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?

Gives clear context for when this tool is valuable: the archive holds terms OBS has not published yet, so upcoming offerings can be checked. It stops short of naming an alternative or an explicit exclusion, so it is context rather than routing.

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