kirikiri_stage_unencrypted

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only states the high-level outcome. It does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, whether game_dir is modified, what 'staging' entails (e.g., copying, linking, or packing), or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent guessing.

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 extremely concise—one sentence with no wasted words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance, omitting parameter details and behavioral context. It is appropriately short but not sufficiently informative to earn a higher score.

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 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a single-line overview, which is insufficient for correct invocation. It does not explain valid mode values ('xp3', 'loose', 'both'), the meaning of the 'pack' boolean, or expected directory structures. This is incomplete for the tool's 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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The terms 'game_dir', 'source_dir', 'mode', and 'pack' are not explained in the prose. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, so the agent has no semantic understanding of how to set the parameters.

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 identifies a specific action ('Stage files') and target resources ('unencrypted.xp3 and/or loose unencrypted/ folder'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like kirikiri_stage_patch and kirikiri_pack_unencrypted. It lacks an explicit verb+resource phrasing like 'Create' or 'Pack', but 'Stage' is meaningful in this domain.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as preferring 'loose' for debugging or 'xp3' for release, nor does it compare with kirikiri_stage_patch or other pack tools. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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