restore_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: it never returns the restored clear text, a security-relevant guarantee. However, it says nothing about permission requirements, whether overwrite is destructive to an existing file, or what happens if the session is invalid.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the negative constraint. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is arguably too terse given the surrounding gaps.

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 presence of an output schema lowers the burden on return-value explanation, but the tool still leaves essential gaps: a prerequisite session_id is undocumented, overwrite semantics on an existing file are unstated, and three of four parameters have zero coverage. For a mutating file tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 all four parameters (masked_path, session_id, overwrite, output_path) are undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'local output file' loosely hints at output_path and the non-return of clear text implies the result is file-bound, but masked_path, session_id, and overwrite remain entirely unexplained.

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 (restore) and resource (placeholders into a local output file), which clearly separates it from mask_file and scan_file in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming how it relates to those siblings, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a prior mask_file run and matching session_id are required). Usage is only inferable from the sibling set, which is weak routing information for a four-tool family.

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