Archive (ZIP)

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false (affirming mutability), which aligns with the create/extract actions. Description discloses all three behaviors (create, extract, list) beyond the schema's enum. No hidden constraints (e.g., size limits, overwrite behavior) are mentioned, but the core actions are clear. For a simple archive tool, this is sufficient.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence covering all three actions. No extraneous words.

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?

Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description is complete enough for a file archiving tool. It covers all actions and core behaviors. Could add details about overwrite policy or file size limits, but not strictly necessary for basic usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema; however, it groups actions ('create', 'extract', 'list') and confirms the tool's purpose, which helps an agent understand parameter relationships. The description does not explain that source_paths is only for create or that extract_to is only for extract, but the schema enum and 'required' field partially compensate.

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?

Description states the tool creates, extracts, and lists ZIP archives, using a German verb ('Erstellt, entpackt und listet') that is specific to the resource ('ZIP-Archive'). The enum action parameter allows exact match for each operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fc_convert_format or fc_copy which do different file operations.

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 the tool is for ZIP archive operations, but does not provide when-not or when-alternative guidance. For example, it does not explain when to use fc_convert_format for other formats. The action enum gives some context but no explicit usage guidance beyond that.

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