decompress_archive

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only, providing the safety profile. The description adds the requirement for file-write access, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior, output locations, or other side effects.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a single high-value prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, 0% schema parameter coverage, and a sparse description, the tool remains under-contextualized. It lacks explanations of return values, edge cases, or parameter semantics, which the description should provide given the absence of structured field descriptions.

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%, and the description makes no mention of the parameters (path, server_id). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema details, leaving server_id unexplained and path only implicitly understandable from the tool name.

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 'Decompress an archive' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It is not merely a tautology of the name, but it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like compress_files or read_file beyond the opposite semantics.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states a prerequisite (file-write access) and does not mention contexts, exclusions, or related tools such as compress_files.

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