archive_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions operations like create/extract/add that mutate the filesystem, but does not mention potential overwrites, permissions required, or what happens to existing files. The presence of an 'overwrite' parameter with a default true is not disclosed, which is a significant gap for a tool that can modify or destroy files.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Zip archive operations') and then lists the operations. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description provides an adequate high-level summary for a moderately complex tool, but without annotations or an output schema, it leaves gaps. It does not explain the behavior of list (return value format), the default for overwrite, or how the multiple parameters interrelate for each operation. The schema fills some gaps, but a slightly more explanatory description would improve completeness.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some relational context (e.g., 'create from files/dirs', 'extract to directory', 'add files to existing archive') but largely paraphrases the schema descriptions without introducing new meaning or clarifying parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies this as a tool for zip archive operations and enumerates the supported actions (list, create, extract, add). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'Zip archive operations' at the outset, though it lists operations rather than a single verb.

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 opens with 'Zip archive operations', which clearly signals when an agent should use this tool—when working with zip archives. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent would correctly select it for archive tasks.

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