jar_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context including the ability to point jar at a classes directory or `outer.jar!nested.jar`, and that an empty pattern matches everything. These are informative but largely parameter-level rather than deeper behavioral disclosures such as output shape or error cases.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, two lines of usage guidance, and a clean Args list. Each sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 a 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description is highly complete. It covers all parameters, provides examples, notes special cases, and mentions paging. The output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. The only minor gap is sibling differentiation, which is already accounted for in other dimensions.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly: jar's accepted forms, pattern glob syntax with examples, kind enum values, limit semantics, and offset paging. Every parameter is explained with enough detail for an agent to construct a correct call.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List entries in an archive, filtered by glob and kind.' This is clear and non-tautological. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like jar_find or jar_search, so the agent must infer distinctions from the tool name and action alone.

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 gives practical usage hints for parameter values ('Use kind='text' to find configuration, kind='archive' to find jars bundled inside a fat jar') and recommends this tool over `unzip -l`. It does not, however, explain when to choose jar_list over sibling tools such as jar_find, jar_search, or jar_overview, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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