get_container_archive_to_file

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

The description reveals important traits: streams to disk without in-band byte cap, file written by server's user, tilde expansion in dest_path, and refusal to overwrite unless overwrite=True. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (correct) and destructiveHint=false (matches default behavior). Description adds value beyond annotations by detailing streaming and file handling.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It then provides parameter definitions and return format without extraneous text. Minor formatting improvement could make parameter descriptions more scannable, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description includes the return dict structure (path, bytes_written, stat). It covers all parameters and key behaviors. Missing details like error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., container must be running), but remains adequate for a moderately complex 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains all 4 parameters: id_or_name (container), path (inside container), dest_path (host destination), overwrite (replace if exists). Each parameter's role is clearly stated, including default for overwrite. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it retrieves a file or directory from a container as a tar archive written to a file on the server host. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_container_archive' (likely returns stream) and 'export_container_to_file' (exports entire container).

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_container_archive' for streaming). It lacks 'when not to use' or scenarios. However, the behavior is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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