file_archive

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions security measures ('使用spawn安全参数，防止命令注入' - using spawn security parameters to prevent command injection) and provides concrete usage examples. While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description enhances understanding with practical implementation details.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement, security note, and two practical examples. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (archive operations with security considerations), rich annotations (destructiveHint=true, etc.), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, security, formats, and usage patterns without needing to explain return values (handled by output schema).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already thoroughly documents all 5 parameters. The description provides example usage showing parameter combinations but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: '文件压缩/解压' (file compression/decompression) with specific supported formats (ZIP, TAR, GZ, TAR.GZ). It distinguishes from sibling tools like file_edit, file_hash, and file_operation by focusing exclusively on archive operations, not general file manipulation or analysis.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (compressing or extracting archives in specific formats) and includes practical examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, such as when file_operation might be more appropriate for non-archive file operations.

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