verify_archive

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: 'Writes nothing' rules out mutation, the return convention ('OK ...' vs 'FAILED ...' with bad members) is disclosed, and the encrypted-member caveat is called out. It omits cost implications — decompressing every file could be slow on large archives — and does not say whether partial results are returned on failure.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the behavioral caveats trailing. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 formatting need not be exhaustive, and the description still summarizes it usefully. For a zero-annotation, 3-parameter tool the main residual gap is the unexplained encoding parameter and the lack of any performance caveat for large archives.

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 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning, and it explains only the password parameter's effect on encrypted members. The 'encoding' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, and 'path' is left to inference.

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 and resource — 'Test archive integrity by decompressing every file and checking CRCs/checksums' — which clearly separates it from siblings like extract_archive, list_entries, and archive_info. An agent can tell this is a validation operation, not a read or extraction.

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?

No explicit statement of when to prefer this over extract_archive or archive_info, nor any preconditions such as checking corruption before extraction. The encrypted-member condition on the password parameter is the only conditional guidance, and it is about one parameter rather than tool selection.

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