singularis_decompress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: bit-exact restoration and a post-restore hash check. However, it says nothing about overwrite behavior when out_path is omitted, handling of corrupt/non-.sing input, or any permission requirements — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with purpose, then inputs, then return value. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 two-parameter, single-purpose tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, inputs, and return shape adequately. The return-value sentence partially duplicates the output schema, but the remaining gap is behavioral (error/overwrite handling) rather than structural.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does map both parameters at a basic level: path is the .sing file, out_path is optional. It does not explain what the default output location is when out_path is omitted, which is the main semantic ambiguity left open.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restore a file compressed by singularis_compress') and adds the distinguishing guarantee 'bit-exact'. It explicitly names its inverse sibling, so an agent can separate it from singularis_compress without inspecting either schema.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool applies ('a file compressed by singularis_compress', '.sing path'), which effectively routes the agent to it after a compress call. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or failure/edge-case conditions, so it is not a 5.

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