Decompress an archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about overwrite behavior, supported archive formats, extraction target naming, or required permissions. Only the vague "under a root directory" hints at path containment, leaving the destructive potential of a filesystem write unexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The brevity costs specification rather than clarity, so it is efficient but under-informative rather than padded.

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?

A 7-parameter, filesystem-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema; the description should at minimum cover overwrite behavior, source-vs-target path semantics, and format support. One sentence cannot carry that, so the definition is incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 57%: 'file', 'server' and 'root' have no schema descriptions. The description loosely maps 'file' to the archive and 'root' to a base directory, but adds no format, path-resolution, or server-vs-panel semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 for moderate coverage is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ("Extract") and resource ("an archive file") plus a scoping note ("under a root directory"). Clear enough to distinguish from files_compress, but it never names the inverse sibling or explains the root scoping.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as files_compress or files_pull. An agent must infer from the name that this is the inverse of compression and that a target root must exist.

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