container_archive_get

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses key behavioral traits: the in-band byte cap (default 32 MiB), the reason (MCP base64-encodes them), and the failure mode ('Abort with ValueError if the archive exceeds'). This adds significant context not inferable from annotations alone.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a usage guideline, then a clean args/returns listing. Every line adds essential information with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers everything needed: what it returns (dict with archive and stat keys), the size cap, error behavior, and the alternative for large paths. It is fully self-contained.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly defines all three parameters: id_or_name, path, and max_bytes with default value and error behavior. This fully compensates for the missing schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a file or directory from a container as a tar archive, returned in band.' This precisely distinguishes it from the sibling tool `container_archive_get_to_file` (which streams to a host path) and `container_archive_put` (which writes).

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?

Explicitly provides guidance on when to prefer an alternative: 'For large paths prefer `container_archive_get_to_file`' due to the in-band size cap. This is clear, actionable usage direction with a named alternative.

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