unpack_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: read-only ('never writes game files'), idempotent (re-runs re-open the DB and upsert, no duplicates), container handling (catalogued, not expanded), and the persistence artifact produced (.autopsy.db with named tables and provenance). This is substantial behavioral disclosure beyond any structured field.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core identity ('CATALOG-FIRST universal unpacker') and each subsequent sentence adding a distinct behavioral fact (scope, read-only, container handling, idempotency). No filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description tells the agent what it produces (the autopsy DB and its tables), so return values need not be explained. It omits any note on cost/failure for walking an entire install, which would be useful for a potentially heavy operation.

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 parameters are already documented, including db_path's default. The description reinforces the default naming (<game>.autopsy.db) but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 (recursively walk, classify, hash, catalog) and resource (entire game install) and immediately clarifies the potentially misleading 'unpacker' name: it does NOT expand containers, it catalogs them as single rows. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_godot_pck, list_assets, and read_asset, which handle per-format extraction.

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 implies scope ('CATALOG-FIRST', 'per-format extraction is a later slice'), which hints that other tools handle extraction, but it never names a sibling or gives an explicit when-to-use/when-not condition. An agent must infer the routing rather than being told.

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