archive_extract

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: default output location, zip-slip prevention (refusing absolute paths, '..', links), entry count and size caps to prevent zip bombs. It covers security and error handling thoroughly.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and then details constraints and safety measures. No redundant information; every part is valuable.

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 3 parameters, the description covers security and default behavior but lacks details on return values, error handling for non-zip-bomb issues, and handling of different archive formats. It is mostly complete but could be slightly richer.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the default behavior for `out_dir` and mentions the optional `members` parameter. However, it does not explicitly describe what `members` does (filtering specific entries) beyond a brief mention, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Extract an archive (or just `members`) into out_dir'. It specifies the default output location and constraints, distinguishing it from sibling tools like archive_list which lists contents, and other extraction tools for different formats.

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 usage for extracting archives and contrasts with listing via sibling name archive_list. It provides clear context about the tool's capabilities and limitations (e.g., security checks), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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