container_archive_get

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses that bytes are returned in-band, that MCP base64-encoding creates a 32 MiB default cap, that exceeding it aborts with ValueError, and that the return is a dict with `archive` and `stat` keys. This is richer behavioral context than typical.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, one for usage guidance, then a compact argument list. Every sentence earns its place, and the format aids readability.

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 3-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. It also names the alternative for large paths, making the tool self-contained and sufficiently complete.

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%, but the description compensates completely by explaining each parameter: `id_or_name` (container id/name), `path` (inside container), and `max_bytes` (abort if exceeded, default 32 MiB). It adds meaning far beyond the raw schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a file or directory from a container as a tar archive, returned in band.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling `container_archive_get_to_file` by explicitly contrasting in-band vs. streaming to host path.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'For large paths prefer `container_archive_get_to_file`' and explains why (in-band bytes capped because MCP base64-encodes them). This provides a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use directive 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.