verify_project_archive

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

With no annotations, the description disclosures key traits: offline operation, scope limited to integrity/compatibility, and that archives remain untrusted. It could be improved by mentioning return behavior or that no data is modified.

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 sentence plus a brief note, containing no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential information.

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?

For a verification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and behavior adequately. Missing details like exact return type are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 one parameter 'archive_path' described generically. The tool description adds specific format context ('run402-project-archive.v1 directory or .r402ar tar'), which enriches the schema description.

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 'run402-project-archive.v1 directory or .r402ar tar' and checks 'integrity and compatibility only'. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like import, export, and inspect.

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 use as a preliminary safety check before treating an archive as trusted ('archives remain untrusted input'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like 'inspect_project_archive' for when detailed inspection is needed, but the context is clear enough.

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