winops_archive_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return format (success, path, items, count) and an example path, but since an output schema exists, the return format is partially redundant. The description does not contradict annotations and provides some useful context about the output structure.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes a return-format block and a brief example, both of which are relevant but somewhat redundant with the existing output schema. Overall, it is efficient and well-organized, though the code block adds a few extra lines that could be trimmed.

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 with one parameter, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists. The description states the purpose and provides an example invocation. This is complete for the tool's complexity; an agent has enough information to select and correctly invoke it.

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% and the single 'path' parameter is adequately described in the schema as 'Path to ZIP or TAR archive.' The description adds an example path ('D:\backups\data.zip') but no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'List the contents of a ZIP or TAR archive,' which is a specific verb (list) and resource (archive). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like winops_archive_extract, winops_archive_create, and winops_archive_add.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a read-only inspection tool or suggest when to prefer it over extraction or creation. The example shows a path usage but does not clarify use cases or exclusions.

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