verify_project_archive

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

With no annotations, the description clearly states the tool only checks integrity and compatibility and treats archives as untrusted input, implying no side effects. This is sufficient for a verification tool.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, input type, and a key behavioral trait (untrusted input). Could mention return type or error handling but overall sufficient.

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% for the single parameter archive_path. The description adds value by clarifying acceptable types (local directory or .r402ar tar path), which is not in the schema description beyond 'path.'

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 it verifies a local archive directory or .r402ar tar file, checking integrity and compatibility. It distinguishes from siblings like inspect_project_archive by specifying it only verifies and does not trust input.

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 offline verification but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like inspect_project_archive, import_project_archive, or export_project_archive. No when-not-to-use conditions given.

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