jar_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only that the JAR must be opened. It says nothing about read-only nature, whether large archives are truncated or paginated, how max_results interacts with listing, or what happens with an invalid/closed session_id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core operation is stated immediately. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail — and it omits the session prerequisite, the return shape (entry names? paths? metadata?), and result-limiting behavior. For a listing tool with three parameters this leaves real 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 100%, so all three parameters (session_id, max_results, filter_pattern) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('contents of an opened JAR file'), so the agent knows the operation is an enumeration of archive entries. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like jar_search, jar_read_file, or jar_list_sessions, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 'opened JAR file' implies a prerequisite (jar_open must run first) but never states it explicitly, and there is no guidance on when to choose this over jar_search, jar_read_file, or jar_list_sessions. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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