extract_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides good behavioral context: it discloses the automatic password-trying behavior for malware analysis, specifies the return value (list of extracted files), and implies mutation (extraction creates files). However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or permissions needed for file operations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains password handling and return value. Zero waste or redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well: it covers the purpose, key behavior (password handling), and return value. However, it lacks details on error cases (e.g., unsupported formats, extraction failures) and doesn't specify the format of the returned list, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'common malware passwords' in more detail). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Extract files'), the resource ('from a compressed archive'), and the supported formats (.zip, .7z, .rar). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_file' or 'get_file_info' by focusing on extraction rather than analysis or metadata retrieval.

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 implies usage for extracting archives, including password-protected ones, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'download_file' for non-archives or 'extract_iocs' for specific content extraction. It provides some context (handles password-protected archives) but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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