jar_repack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write/overwrite operation ('Repack... with all changes') but never states what gets destroyed, whether the original JAR is overwritten by default, whether a session must be open, or what happens if no edits were made.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.

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?

For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits the session requirement, the default overwrite behavior, and the relationship to sibling edit/compile tools. An agent would need to guess at important operational details.

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 both session_id and output_path are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the structured fields, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 has a specific verb ('Repack') and resource ('the modified JAR file'), so the general action is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like jar_compile_java, jar_close, or jar_restore_file, leaving ambiguity about which repackaging operation applies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as jar_compile_java or jar_close, nor any stated precondition (e.g. that this must come after jar_edit_file or jar_compile_java). Usage must be inferred entirely.

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