kirikiri_list_patch_archives

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists existing archives, but it does not clarify the numeric pattern (e.g., patch1.xp3, patch2.xp3), recursive behavior, handling of missing directories, or output format. The single sentence provides minimal insight into the tool's runtime behavior.

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 one sentence, has no filler, and front-loads the action ('List'). Every word is necessary it achieves maximum conciseness without irrelevant details.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief to fully equip an agent for correct usage. It fails to explain what 'unencrypted.xp3' means, how the base parameter alters the listing, or what the return data looks like. The tool is simple, but the description leaves too many details for the agent to infer.

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%. The description's reference to 'custom base' gives a slight hint about the 'base' parameter but does not explain the default 'patch' or expected format. 'game_dir' is not described at all, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the name. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List' and clearly specifies the resource: 'patchN.xp3 (or custom base) and unencrypted.xp3.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_list, xp3_unpack, and other listing utilities.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as archive_list or xp3_list_schemes. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without sufficient direction for tool selection.

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