archive_list

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.