Package an entire research repository and its cited source materials into a ZIP, including archive and recycle bin, without overwriting existing files.
将整个研究库与引用的原始材料打包为 ZIP，包含归档和回收区；不覆盖已有文件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: the archive and trash regions are included, and existing files are not overwritten. It does not address auth, timing, or output location, but the non-overwrite disclosure is exactly the kind of behavioral fact an agent needs.
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 compact sentence front-loads the core action (whole-library ZIP) followed by scope qualifiers and the non-overwrite guarantee. 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?
With only one parameter, no output schema, and consistent annotations, the description covers what gets packaged and the overwrite policy well. It still leaves the 'output' parameter meaning and any size/time expectations to inference.
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 0% with a single required 'output' parameter that is never described. The mention of ZIP packaging and non-overwrite behavior hints that 'output' is a destination path, but the description never names or explains the parameter, format, or pattern constraints.
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 (pack/bundle) and resource (the entire research library plus referenced raw materials) with clear scope (ZIP, including archived and trash areas). No sibling performs a backup, and the operation is unambiguous.
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 a full-library backup use case but never states when to reach for it versus siblings like research_archive or research_report. Usage is inferable from the verb, not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.