File Extract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one useful fact – that this is a write operation (写操作) – but omits that the schema default overwrite='replace' will overwrite existing files, that encrypted archives need the password param, and any permission or failure-mode context.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity on a 9-parameter write tool borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description omits the destructive default overwrite mode, the encrypted-archive password requirement, and any remote/NAS context. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the caller-side caveats are missing.

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 89%, so the schema already documents host, port, scheme, profile, password, overwrite, charsets and the two required paths. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. charset handling, overwrite semantics), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (解压/extract), the resource (压缩包/archive) and the destination (指定目录/output directory), plus flags that it is a write operation. An agent can tell it apart from file_compress at a glance, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 (auth/NAS connectivity), and no mention of the counterpart file_compress or when to prefer one. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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