fscp_info

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It only says it returns a summary, but it does not state whether it is read-only, whether it requires an archive to already be open, or what happens if no archive is available. It does not describe any side effects, permissions, or error behavior, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise and avoids redundancy, but it is so minimal that it misses critical information (like parameter semantics and usage context). It earns its place for stating purpose, but the brevity works against completeness.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description should at least explain what 'handle' is and any preconditions (e.g., needing an open archive). It does neither. While the output schema might cover return value structure, the tool's inputs and prerequisites are left undefined, making the overall definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'handle' parameter at all. The agent receives no explanation of what 'handle' refers to (e.g., an archive handle, a file path, an ID). The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema parameter documentation.

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 clearly indicates this tool produces a summary of an open archive, listing specific content (versions, counters, list of GC, ZIP records). It is distinct from sibling fscp_* tools like fscp_open, fscp_save, or fscp_diff, since it focuses on retrieving informational summary data rather than performing mutating or navigation actions. However, it lacks a verb like 'retrieve' or 'return', which slightly weakens the action clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implicit hint is that it operates on an 'open archive', but there is no explicit statement about when to choose fscp_info over other tools.

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