Inspect archive (facts, determinism verdict, CI checks)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: eager vs. lazy validation, refusal with ZIP_* codes, escalation via strict, and the fact that certain checks are deferred to verify_zip. It even discloses that hostile shapes are refused here. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single dense paragraph but well-organized: purpose first, then outputs, then behavior, then CI/usage, then input. Every sentence contributes new information without fluff. While not short, it is appropriately detailed for a complex tool with 9 parameters and nested objects. The front-loading of the core purpose aids quick comprehension.

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 tool of this complexity, the description covers essential aspects: the eager validation behavior, the check/assert mechanism, the token-frugal modes, input options (base64 vs path), strict escalation, and security limits. Since an output schema exists, the description need not detail return structure, but it does mention checks[] and checksPassed. Nothing critical for an agent to call it correctly is 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful context for key parameters: check/assert as a CI gate, verbosity/fields for token frugality, and validate's eager default. It does not repeat schema details but explains their purpose, which adds value beyond the structured fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read-only archive report in ONE call' followed by a detailed enumeration of outputs (size, counts, Zip64, determinism verdict, diagnostics). It explicitly distinguishes from verify_zip by stating which divergences are NOT caught here. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for a comprehensive read-only report and CI gating via check/assert) and explicitly notes that method/CRC/size divergences are handled by verify_zip. It also mentions the create/modify → verify/extract chain, implying usage in that flow. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of X when...' for all alternatives, but the main alternative (verify_zip) is covered.

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