list_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default line format (kind, size, mtime, name), the '!!' refusal marker, and that truncation past the limit is summarized as a count rather than silently dropped. It omits any mention of password-protected archives or encoding handling, which the presence of password/encoding parameters implies is relevant.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in four words, then per-parameter behavior follows in compact parenthetical lines. Every sentence adds information; 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation and the description correctly focuses on parameters and the '!!' marker. The missing discussion of encryption/password and encoding is the only notable gap for a six-parameter tool.

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 must compensate and it does so for half the parameters: glob semantics (full path vs. filename, with '*.py' and 'src/*' examples), tree rendering, and limit's default of 200 with truncation behavior. The required path, encoding, and especially password are left entirely undocumented, so a meaningful compensation gap remains.

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 opening sentence pairs a specific verb and resource ('List archive members') with an explicit scope boundary ('without extracting'), which cleanly separates it from extract_archive and read_entry. An agent can select this tool without inspecting the schema.

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?

'without extracting' and the note that '!!' marks entries extract_archive would refuse implicitly route the agent to extract_archive when content is wanted. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement naming alternatives (search_in_archive, archive_info), so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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