kirikiri_pack_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a valuable behavioral detail (zero adlr checksums) and references the underlying tool (KirikoriTools Xp3Pack). However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting output, permissions needed, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action, output, and key detail. The parenthetical with the tool name adds specificity without bloat. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple pack operation, the description gives the core purpose and a key differentiator, but lacks guidance on compression parameters and when to use this over sibling tools. It is adequate as a minimum viable description but leaves clear gaps for an agent needing full context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints that 'input' is a folder and 'output' is an XP3 file, but leaves compress_index and compress_contents entirely unexplained. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond them.

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 function with a specific verb ('Pack'), resource ('folder into patch XP3'), and key modifier ('zero adlr checksums'). It distinguishes itself from sibling pack tools like xp3_pack and kirikiri_pack_unencrypted by emphasizing the zero adlr checksum behavior and the KirikiriTools Xp3Pack implementation.

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 for creating patch XP3 archives without adlr checksums, but does not explicitly name alternatives, exclusions, or when to choose this over other pack tools. The zero adlr checksums hint gives context, but no direct comparison or 'use when' statement is provided.

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