zip_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the destination folder is created automatically and that it uses PowerShell Expand-Archive. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, error handling, or return value, which are relevant gaps for an extraction tool. This adds some transparency but is not comprehensive.

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 three sentences: one for the action/verb, one for usage guidance, and one for a behavioral side-effect. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler language. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose, usage, and a key side-effect. It does not mention overwrite behavior or password-protected archives, but these are edge cases for a basic extraction tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (archive path and destination folder), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameters themselves; the auto-create note is more about destination folder behavior than parameter semantics. Thus, it stays at baseline.

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 action: 'Extract a ZIP archive to a destination folder using PowerShell Expand-Archive.' This is a specific verb+resource+destination, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like zip_create. The phrase 'Use this tool to unzip archives' reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this tool to unzip archives,' which provides a clear when-to-use instruction. However, it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, though the sibling context (e.g., zip_create) makes the distinction implicit. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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