Unpack a zip archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'List[s] entries' and 'return[s] the contents of its text files', indicating a read-only operation, and explicitly notes that 'Build caches and binary entries are skipped.' This is valuable behavioral information beyond just the action. It could disclose more about output format or error scenarios, but it covers the key non-obvious behavior.

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 two sentences and front-loads the main action. The purpose clause ('so a project... turned into cards') adds context but is somewhat extra. However, it is not verbose and every sentence conveys relevant information. It could be slightly shorter, but it is well-structured and readable.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description gives the general purpose and one behavioral nuance (skipping caches/binary), but it does not explain parameter roles, return structure, or any constraints. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is just above minimum viable but lacks important details for confident invocation.

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 only 33% (only 'include' has a description). The description does not explain the required 'path' parameter or the 'maxFiles' parameter, and it does not compensate for this low coverage. While the phrase 'text files' hints at filtering behavior, it does not clarify how 'include' or 'maxFiles' work, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance on parameter semantics.

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 function: 'List a local zip archive's entries and return the contents of its text files.' It uses a specific verb ('List', 'return') and resource ('zip archive'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on archive inspection rather than direct file reading or card creation. The added context about turning contents into cards further clarifies its purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'so a project generated earlier in the conversation can be inspected and turned into cards.' It implies this is the archive inspection tool among the siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it misses the 'exclusions' bar for a 5.

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