Extract or test archives

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that — that execution is asynchronous ("Runs as background tasks") and that split volume sets are handled by starting from the first volume. It stops short of disclosing overwrite behavior for existing extracted files or the destination directory, which matters for a non-read-only tool.

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?

Two sentences and a parenthetical, front-loaded with the core action and then the inputs, with zero filler. Every clause carries operational information an agent needs before calling.

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?

For a four-parameter, no-output-schema, background-executing tool this covers the essentials: what it does, what inputs it accepts, how it runs, and how to await results. The missing piece is where extracted output lands and what happens to pre-existing files, which an agent may want before committing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does for three of four: task_ids must be finished downloads, paths must be inside the download folder, and password is conditional. test_only is only implied by "Test or extract" rather than named, leaving one parameter to inference.

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?

States a specific verb pair ("test or extract") plus the resource ("downloaded archives") and the engine (7-Zip), which is enough to separate it from siblings like tg_search_archive or tg_list_files. The parenthetical about split sets starting from their first volume further pins down the exact operation.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (finished download task_ids, or paths inside the download folder) and routes the agent to tg_file_context for passwords and tg_wait_tasks for the async follow-up. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. versus search_archive), but the input requirements effectively scope its use.

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