winops_archive_extract

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

No description-annotation contradiction exists; annotations are all false, correctly signaling a mutating, side-effecting operation, and the description adds a return-format contract. However, this is a mutating, archive-parsing operation where important behaviors are undisclosed: whether target_dir is auto-created, what happens on overwrite, whether .tar.gz variants are accepted, path-traversal safety, and failure semantics (partial extraction, cleanup). The return format and example add value but don't cover these behavioral traits.

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 efficiently front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact return-format block and a usable example—no filler. Minor deduction for the return format section being partially redundant with the existing output schema and a minor whitespace/formatting quirk where the Examples section runs together with the code block delimiter.

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 (2 required params, both documented, an example, and an output schema available), the description is reasonably complete for a Tier-B operation. Output schema exists so the return format in the description is a bonus. The main gap is undiscussed edge behavior for a mutating operation—overwrite policy, directory creation, and supported TAR variants—so it falls short of excellent.

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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters briefly documented ('Archive to extract.', 'Destination directory.'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The example adds modest value by demonstrating concrete Windows-style paths and positional argument usage, but the description doesn't elaborate beyond what the schema already states.

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?

"Extract a ZIP or TAR archive to a directory" pairs a specific verb (Extract) with a specific resource (ZIP or TAR archives) and destination, making the function instantly clear. It distinguishes itself from its archive-related siblings (winops_archive_list, winops_archive_create, winops_archive_add, winops_archive_expand_cab) since none of those cover extraction of ZIP/TAR formats.

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?

Usage context is only implied through the verb 'Extract' and the provided example, with no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the close sibling winops_archive_expand_cab (which could overlap in the 'extract/expand archives' space), explicit exclusions or cross-references would help. The example does demonstrate the call signature, which provides some guidance.

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