kirikiri_pimg_unpack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the action and output but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether files are overwritten), prerequisites, permissions, or error behavior. The reference to PSBResManager.Import adds a hint of internal behavior but is insufficient for full 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrases. Every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately concise for a tool with only two parameters and a straightforward purpose.

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 description covers the core action and target format, but it lacks details about the output (e.g., whether N.res is a file or directory), potential pitfalls, or the relationship to other operations. Given the simple parameter set, the minimal description is adequate but not rich enough to be fully complete in the context of many similar sibling tools.

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 does not mention the parameters. The parameter names 'path' and 'output_dir' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not confirm their roles (e.g., path as input file, output_dir as target folder) or any constraints. Since coverage is low and description fails to compensate, this warrants a below-average score.

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 'Unpack .pimg/PSB chunk resources to N.res' uses a specific verb ('unpack') and explicitly names the input (.pimg/PSB) and output (N.res) formats. It also references the underlying function (KrKrZ PSBResManager.Import), which adds precision and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'kirikiri_pimg_pack' (the inverse operation).

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: to unpack .pimg/PSB chunk resources to N.res. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, the specific input/output formats provide clear context for an expert agent. The inverse sibling 'kirikiri_pimg_pack' is implicitly excluded by the direction of the operation.

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