jar_overview

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a non-mutating summary operation. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the output dimensions and the accepted input forms, including nested archives like `app.jar!BOOT-INF/lib/dep-1.0.jar`.

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 summary of behavior, one sentence of usage guidance, then a short Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the key guidance is front-loaded.

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 one required parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers all the information an agent needs to select and correctly invoke the tool. It also positions the tool among many siblings by saying to start here, reducing ambiguity in a crowded tool family.

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 carry the parameter semantics. It does so thoroughly: 'jar' is explained as a path to jars, wars, aars, zips, exploded directories, or nested archives with a concrete syntax example. This fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarize') and names the exact resource and output fields: manifest, size, packages, class count, and source attachment. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinct from listing, searching, or extracting jar contents.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Start here when you meet an unfamiliar jar.' It also tells the agent what not to do instead ('instead of unzipping it or listing every entry'), which implies exclusions even if sibling tool names are not named.

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