extract_jar_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that text resources are extracted, without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, whether it downloads the jar, what happens for binary files, how max_bytes affects output, or what the response shape is. This is a significant gap for an extraction tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 efficient sentence with no filler; it front-loads the core action and resource, then enriches with three concrete examples. Every word earns its place, and the structure is appropriately scannable for an agent.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needs to provide more operating context, but it does not explain return values, matching behavior, or the relationship between resource_path and resource_pattern. An agent still lacks key information needed to correctly invoke the tool, such as whether at least one path/pattern is required or what happens when no resources match.

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 already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions, so the schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description adds only a general sense of what resource types are relevant; it does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters like resource_path, resource_pattern, limit, or max_bytes.

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 states a specific action (extract) and resource (text resources inside a jar), and gives concrete examples (.proto files, service descriptors, metadata). These examples clearly differentiate it from sibling tools like extract_class_info and extract_source_code, which target class binaries and source code rather than arbitrary text resources.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate by enumerating text-resource types like .proto files and service descriptors, implying its niche among the sibling extraction tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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