sovereign_inspect_archive

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does advertise in-memory, O_RDONLY, zero-disk-extraction behavior, which is useful, but this is potentially contradicted by the schema's extract_diagram_to_artifact/artifact_output_dir parameters that write PNGs to disk. It also does not disclose the destructive side effects of purge_prefix or the mutating nature of relocation 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 with no fluff. The primary streaming/inspection purpose is front-loaded, followed by secondary modes. It is dense with formats and actions, but every clause contributes information; the structure is efficient for the tool's breadth.

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?

This is a complex, multi-mode tool with 14 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations contrary to behavior. The description omits what the tool returns, which parameters are required for each action (e.g., old_prefix/new_prefix for relocate/purge), and does not flag that some modes mutate the graph or write artifacts to disk. The rich schema helps, but the description alone is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema by grouping section_filter and char_offset as 'section/offset slicing' and explaining the relocation/purge actions as 'zero-reindex corpus path relocation / stale relationship cleanup'—concepts not obvious from the enum or parameter names alone.

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 identifies a specific verb ('inspects') and resource ('archive containers') with an explicit list of formats, and it names the core operations (inspection, slicing, relocation, purge, stats). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 scenarios by listing the supported operations ('section/offset slicing', 'relocate_prefix', 'purge_prefix', 'corpus_stats'), but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is adequate but relies on inference.

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