xp3_unpack

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that unpacking occurs with an explicit scheme; it does not warn that files are written to output, how errors are handled, or whether this can overwrite existing files. The mutation aspect is only implicit in 'Unpack'.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the action, and wastes no words. However, at eight words for a six-parameter tool, it is under-specified; brevity is achieved at the cost of necessary context.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It omits required parameters, default behavior of scheme, optional entries filtering, and the relationship to scheme-list/resolve tools, leaving an agent without enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions, and the text adds context only for 'scheme' by stressing it must be explicit. It does not help with the required path/output, the meaning of entries/omit-to-extract-all beyond schema, or game_title/scheme_params usage. Since the schema already documents entries and game_title, the marginal value from the description is low.

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 'Unpack' and resource 'XP3', with the qualifier 'explicitly selected scheme' which distinguishes it from generic archive_unpack and xp3_pack. It doesn't mention related scheme-resolution tools, so sibling differentiation is partial.

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 'with an explicitly selected scheme' implies the tool is used when a scheme is already known, suggesting you should first obtain a scheme via xp3_list_schemes or xp3_resolve_scheme. However, it never states this explicitly or mentions alternatives for other archive formats, so guidance is only implied.

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