Dpanel Explorer Unzip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about overwrite behavior for existing files, supported archive formats, required permissions, or whether the source archive is removed — all critical for a write operation.

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 single sentence is short but that is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded scope or actionable detail to begin with.

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 mutation tool with a three-parameter required schema, zero parameter documentation, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. The output schema existing relieves some return-value burden, but nothing about invocation semantics is covered.

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?

All three parameters (file, path, mount_point) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. The agent cannot tell the relationship between 'file' and 'path', nor what mount_point refers to.

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 "解压压缩文件" (decompress a compressed file) essentially restates the tool name "unzip". It names a resource type but adds no scope, format support, or distinction from sibling explorer operations such as dpanel_explorer_import or dpanel_explorer_export.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., archive must already exist at the given path). The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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