Extract archive file

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing files, required write permissions, or that extraction may create new directories. The annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) are not contradicted, but the description fails to disclose any additional behavioral traits, such as whether the operation is reversible or what happens on conflict.

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, two sentences, and front-loads the primary action. The list of supported formats is useful and compact. It is not overly verbose, though the first sentence is somewhat redundant with the title. Overall, it is efficiently structured and easy to scan.

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 simple extraction tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It covers the action and formats but does not explain the expected result or return value, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., session must be active). Given the annotations and schema cover safety and parameters, this is a reasonable level of completeness, but there is room to inform about success/failure indications.

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 100%, so the parameters (sessionId, archivePath, extractPath) are already documented with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely mentions a 'default location' which is already implied by the optional extractPath parameter. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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's function: extracting archive files, and lists the supported formats (.tar, .tar.gz, .tgz, .zip, etc.), which adds specificity. It distinguishes itself from the sibling compress_files by naming the opposite operation. The verb and resource are unambiguous, making it easy for an agent to understand its purpose.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for extraction as opposed to compression (compress_files), nor does it suggest any prerequisites or conditions. The usage is implied by the name and description but lacks explicit routing or exclusions.

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