kirikiri_pack_unencrypted

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals the 'override' and 'zero adlr' aspects, but does not state side effects such as whether an existing output file is overwritten, whether directories are created, or what happens with the input folder. For a mutation-style tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 terse sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and output format, then appends the technical overrides. It is efficient, though the jargon may be opaque to some agents, it earns high marks for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to fully orient an agent. It omits important behavioral context, parameter semantics for half the inputs, and does not clarify how this fits among the many sibling Kirikiri packing tools. The provided schema descriptions help partially but leave gaps.

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 40% (two of five parameters have descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does not: 'input' is left unexplained beyond the implied folder reference, and the compress flags are not clarified. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Pack') and resource ('folder to unencrypted.xp3'), clearly indicating the tool creates an unencrypted Kirikiri archive. The technical qualifiers ('KirikiriUnencryptedArchive override; zero adlr') add precision and separate it from sibling pack tools like xp3_pack or kirikiri_pack_patch, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'Pack folder to unencrypted.xp3' implies the intended use case: producing an unencrypted archive. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over other pack tools (e.g., for encrypted packs or patch archives), nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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