kirikiri_pimg_pack

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 states the function and internal method name but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting files), required resource directory semantics, the effect of the 'compress' and 'fix_offsets' parameters, or any safety or permission considerations. The behavior is only minimally implied by the word 'Repack'.

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 conveys the core purpose without excessive words. However, it is so terse that it omits needed details, slightly reducing its effectiveness as a complete description, though it remains highly 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only 12 words. It does not cover prerequisites, return values, error conditions, or the relationship to sibling tools like 'kirikiri_pimg_unpack'. This is far from complete for a tool with this complexity.

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, but it only hints at the purpose of 'input', 'output', and 'resource_dir' via 'Repack N.res into .pimg/PSB'. It does not explain the meanings or allowed values of 'compress' or 'fix_offsets', nor does it clarify the exact format expected for 'input' or 'resource_dir'. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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: 'Repack N.res into .pimg/PSB', using a specific verb ('Repack'), a specific resource ('N.res'), and a specific output format ('.pimg/PSB'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'kirikiri_pimg_unpack' and 'kirikiri_psb_analyze_export'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It implies a repacking workflow through the verb 'Repack' and the mention of 'KrKrZ PSBResManager.Export', but does not explain when a user should choose it over similar pack/repack siblings.

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