extract_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without revealing whether existing files are overwritten, whether the destination directory is created if missing, what archive formats are supported, or how errors are handled. For a mutation-like tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise (5 words), which is efficient, but it is so terse that it sacrifices essential information. While every word earns its place, the resulting under-specification makes it less useful than a slightly longer description would be. It is appropriately front-loaded, but the size is borderline insufficient.

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 only two simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the primary source of information. It fails to mention destination directory creation, overwrite policy, supported archive formats, return value, or error behavior. For a tool that likely performs side-effects (extraction), this is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters ('Archive file path' and 'Extraction destination'), giving 100% coverage. The description text adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema descriptions are adequate but not enriched by the tool description.

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 function ('Extract archive to destination') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'archive_files' by explicitly being the extraction counterpart. However, it doesn't mention supported archive formats or other clarifying details, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is meant for extracting archives created by 'archive_files' or any other contextual use case. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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