archive

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

Despite readOnlyHint=true, the description goes well beyond annotations: it discloses that listing extracts nothing, that member retrieval converts to Markdown, that 0 members means an empty archive, and that an ERROR item represents fetch/open/refusal failures including traversal, symlink, and size cases. This gives the agent accurate expectations for edge 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it states the resource, gives example phrasings, excludes the sibling tool, defines the two-phase call pattern, and enumerates error/empty outcomes. No filler or redundant restatement is present.

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 two-parameter tool with rich annotations, this is complete. There is no output schema, but the description explains the return semantics well enough: listing returns names and sizes, member returns Markdown, 0 members means empty, and ERROR signals the failure modes. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful workflow semantics beyond the schema by establishing the ordering of listing first and then member selection, and it reinforces the safety distinction between the two modes. This is a modest but real enhancement over the schema text.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource ('Browses a compressed archive'), then clarifies it is not a web page fetcher by naming the destination for URLs. It clearly distinguishes itself from the fetch sibling while defining both listing and member-extraction modes.

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 a URL to a page goes to fetch, naming the alternative tool and the condition that routes there. It also provides a concrete two-step usage pattern: call with source first for the listing, then with member to convert that entry to Markdown.

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