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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It only mentions 'without extracting', hinting at a non-destructive behavior, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what information is returned, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure.

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 a single 6-word sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action. However, it is perhaps too terse for a tool with four parameters, as it lacks any structured detail, but it is still 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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination behavior (limit/offset), the meaning of the format parameter, or the return value shape. The simplicity of the tool's action helps, but substantial gaps remain.

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 0%, and the description provides absolutely no explanation of the parameters (path, limit, format, offset). It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use the parameters.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('archive entries'), and explicitly distinguishes from extraction tools by adding 'without extracting'. It is specific and unambiguous, differentiating it from siblings like archive_unpack.

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 phrase 'without extracting' implies the tool is used when the user wants to see archive contents without decompressing, but there is no explicit contrast with other listing-related siblings (e.g., archive_list_formats, archive_probe). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only enumeration action via 'List all,' but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether it reflects runtime-discovered plugins or requires initialization.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and contains zero filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

For a no-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description clearly states what is listed and even specifies 'pack support' as an additional dimension. It is slightly terse but sufficient for the intended use case.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema already reflects that with 100% coverage. Baseline 4 applies because there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'all native archive format plugins and pack support.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_list (which likely lists archive contents) and archive_probe (which likely probes a specific archive).

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: call this to see which archive formats are natively supported and whether packing is supported. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like audio_list_formats or vnt_list_formats.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Create an archive' without mentioning side effects, permissions, format handling, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool that likely creates files.

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 a single short sentence, making it concise in length. However, it is under-specified and adds little beyond the tool name, so while structure is acceptable, the content is too minimal to be highly effective.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the archive format, the role of the 'native writer', or the constraints on parameters, leaving the agent without essential context for 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the six parameters. It does not explain what 'input', 'output', 'format', 'version', 'compress_index', or 'compress_contents' mean, nor does it add any usage hints beyond the schema's raw names and defaults.

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 a clear action ('Create an archive') but the qualifier 'using a native writer' is vague and does not specify what kind of archive or what differentiates it from sibling tools like xp3_pack or archive_unpack. It provides a basic verb+resource but lacks specificity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among numerous sibling tools for archiving and packing, there is no mention of preferred contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It lacks disclosure about side effects (none indicated), requirements (e.g., file existence or permissions), or return behavior. It states only the action, not the behavioral context around it.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and an exclusion. Every word earns its place; no verbosity 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain return values or expected outputs, but it does not. The tool is simple, but given the lack of structured context, more information about the detection result would be needed for full completeness.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'path' parameter, leaving the agent to infer that a file path is expected. It adds no semantic detail about path type, constraints, or format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') and a clear resource ('archive format'), and the parenthetical clarifies it is not a conversion tool, distinguishing it from conversion-related siblings. This makes the primary purpose unambiguous.

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 via 'Detect archive format' but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like archive_list_formats or archive_unpack. The 'not for script/JSON conversion' provides a minimal exclusion but names no sibling alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a high-level action and a negative clarification. It does not mention whether the operation extracts all entries by default, writes files to disk, overwrites anything, requires specific permissions, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a potentially mutating tool.

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?

While the description is very short, it is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It is a single fragment with no structured organization, and the cryptic parenthetical does little to clarify the tool's behavior. It lacks essential details that the schema and usage require, so it fails to be an efficient, useful description.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, 2 required, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, error conditions, or the meaning of key parameters like 'scheme'. The description leaves the agent with almost no contextual understanding beyond the bare action of unpacking an archive.

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 only 17% (only 'entries' has a description), and the tool description adds almost no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain 'path', 'format', 'output', 'scheme', or 'scheme_params', nor how they interact. The single sentence does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving most parameters effectively undocumented.

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 tool's action ('Unpack') and resource ('natively supported archive'), which gives a clear sense of purpose. The parenthetical '(NOT script→JSON)' helps distinguish it from script-processing tools, but it doesn't differentiate it from other archive-related siblings like xp3_unpack or archive_pack, so it's not fully distinct.

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 only a negative hint ('NOT script→JSON') about when not to use it, but gives no positive guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as archive_pack, xp3_unpack, or archive_list. There is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion beyond the one negative clarification.

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