List ZIP Entries

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds key behavioral context: it lists entries 'without extracting the archive' and targets 'local IBGE ZIP archive', implying a read-only operation. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the non-destructive nature.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value—first defines the tool, second gives usage 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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, workflow, and outcome (discovering file names). However, it could briefly mention the output format (e.g., list of filenames) for full completeness.

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% with a clear description for zipPath. The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema (it reinforces the purpose but doesn't elaborate on path format or constraints). Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 states exactly what the tool does: 'List file entries inside a local IBGE ZIP archive without extracting the archive.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('file entries inside a local IBGE ZIP archive'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ibge_microdata_extract_zip_entry by noting it does not extract, and it mentions the use case of discovering exact TXT, documentation, or table names.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use this after ibge_microdata_download_file to discover the exact TXT, documentation, or table names inside official IBGE microdata ZIPs.' This provides clear context and a recommended workflow, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives beyond extract_zip_entry.

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