panelica_file_manager_get_v1_files_archive_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating the required scope (files:read) and HTTP method, but it does not disclose what data is returned or whether the info reflects current state versus a snapshot. 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 compact and scannable, front-loading the operation and listing endpoint, category, scope, and read-only status. Minor redundancy exists because 'Get archive info' duplicates the title and 'Read-only' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what 'archive info' means and what the caller will receive. It only provides the endpoint and scopes, leaving the meaning and return value under-specified for an agent deciding whether this is the correct read call.

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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the input schema, with user_id as 'Target user ID' and path as a query parameter, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that baseline.

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 'Get archive info' merely restates the tool name/title and never clarifies what 'archive info' actually means (e.g., compressed file metadata vs backup archive) or what fields are returned. The endpoint and category add some context but do not distinguish this from other file-manager read tools.

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 general context (HTTP GET, files:read scope, read-only) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no practical hints about preconditions or expected use cases.

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