decompress_safe_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses security-relevant behavior (zip-bomb and path-traversal immunity), hard resource limits (file count and uncompressed bytes), supported formats, and a payment requirement. It stops short of describing side effects like whether extraction occurs in-memory or writes to disk.

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?

A single efficient sentence packs in purpose, supported formats, security guarantees, and limits, followed by a compact pricing note. Every element adds information; there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description is strong on safety and format coverage, but with no output schema and only a generic 'payload' property, an agent cannot determine the exact payload structure, what the tool returns, or the precise limit values. It is adequate for a security-focused utility but leaves key operational details unspecified.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: 'ZIP/TAR/GZ archives' clarifies what the payload should represent, and '0.02 USDC on Base L2' gives a concrete value for the paymentSignature parameter that the schema only vaguely calls a 'micropayment'.

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?

Describes a specific action ('extractor') with concrete resources (ZIP/TAR/GZ archives) and a distinctive security focus (zip-bomb/path-traversal immunity). The supported formats and safety qualifiers clearly separate it from the large sibling set, where no other archive decompressor appears.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need safe extraction of ZIP/TAR/GZ archives. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving some routing decisions to the agent's inference.

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