container_archive_get_to_file

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, which matches the description of writing a file. The description adds behavioral details: writes directly to disk, refuses existing files unless overwrite=True, and no in-band byte cap. Lacks details on error handling but is sufficient for typical use.

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?

Description is concise with a clear first sentence stating the main action, followed by important behavioral notes and a bullet-style parameter listing. Every sentence is informative and earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description includes the return format. It covers key aspects: disk writing behavior, overwrite control, and destination path resolution. Missing edge cases like container not found or permission errors, but overall complete for a file retrieval tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all four parameters: id_or_name, path, dest_path, and overwrite. Each is accompanied by a clear, concise explanation that adds meaning beyond parameter names.

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 retrieves a file/directory from a container as a tar archive written to a server host file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like container_archive_get (presumably returning stream) and container_archive_put (sending archive to container), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Description provides key usage details: writes to disk with no byte cap, handles overwriting via overwrite parameter, and expands '~'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like container_archive_get, though the context implies distinction.

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