winops_archive_expand_cab

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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It adds the return format (success, path, target_dir) and the example, but does not disclose side effects like directory creation, overwrite behavior, or error handling. Some value is added beyond annotations, but 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 a single clear sentence followed by a structured return format and example. It is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and every element serves a function without fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no nested objects), the description provides the core purpose, an example, and the return format. It omits potential edge cases or dependency details, but for a straightforward expansion operation, this is largely complete.

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 descriptions for both parameters are minimal ('Path to the .cab file.' and 'Destination directory.'), but the description supplements them with a concrete example showing Windows path formats. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states the verb 'expand' and the resource 'Windows CAB archive', using 'expand.exe' for clarity. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like winops_archive_extract by specifying the CAB format and the underlying utility.

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 usage for CAB archives via the example, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., winops_archive_extract for other formats). No mention of when-not or alternatives is provided, so guidance is only implied.

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