panelica_file_manager_get_v1_files_archive_info

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only indicates a GET operation, implying a read-only action, but does not specify whether authentication is required, rate limits, or any side effects. The lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 very short (three sentences) but lacks informative content. While it is concise, it does not effectively use the space to convey necessary details; it is more under-specified than efficiently concise.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what 'archive info' includes (e.g., size, contents, compression type) or how to interpret the response. It fails to provide this context, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 structured schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and types, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 states 'Get archive info' and specifies the HTTP method and path, which identifies the resource but does not clarify what constitutes an 'archive' or what specific information is returned. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity compared to sibling tools like 'compress' or 'extract'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other file manager tools (e.g., compress, extract, move). The description does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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