list_archive_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'without extracting,' indicating no destructive side effects. However, no details on output format or potential limitations (e.g., large archives, password-protected files) are given. Adequate for a simple read operation.

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 extremely concise (9 words) and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 the tool's simplicity, one parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the essential behavior and parameter details. No additional context is necessary.

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 single parameter 'archive_path' is fully described in the input schema with supported formats. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as per guidelines.

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 states the tool lists archive contents without extracting. The verb 'List' and resource 'contents of an archive file' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling extract tools like extract_zip and extract_tar.

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 implies use for viewing contents without extraction, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like extract_zip. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is merely implied.

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