Extract files from UE .pak archives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: parsing the index directly, support for AES-encrypted indexes (including bit-flipped), and that it works without umodel. It also specifies the output default location. Absence of side-effect details like overwriting or error behavior is a minor gap, but the description is significantly more transparent than most.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every sentence adds value: action, mechanism, workflow, and default output.

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 (8 parameters, AES modes, filters, no output schema), the description covers the core use case well: extraction, AES handling, and linkage to umodel_export. It lacks information about return behavior or error handling, but this is partially compensated by the detailed schema and the workflow context provided.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., default output under Downloads, AES modes) that aligns with schema parameter descriptions but does not significantly enhance per-parameter understanding 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 states the action ('Extract raw .uasset/.uexp files') and the resource ('UE .pak archives'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like umodel_export (conversion) and pak_list (listing). It also notes that it works without umodel, further differentiating its role.

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 workflow guidance by indicating that extracted loose files can be converted with umodel_export. It also mentions AES support and bit-flipped AES, giving context on when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention pak_list for listing purposes.

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