sassy_tar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and compress options, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file overwriting), expected source format, output behavior when empty, or any permissions/return value details.

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 exceptionally brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The compression formats are listed efficiently. While not overlong, it may be too terse to provide full context, but for a simple tool it earns its place.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description lacks essential context about parameter semantics, especially 'source' and 'output'. The tool has three parameters and no annotations, so more explanatory detail is needed for an agent 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'compress' parameter with allowed values (gz, bz2, xz, none), but fails to explain 'source' and 'output' parameters, which are essential for tool invocation.

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 clearly states 'Create a tar archive', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sassy_untar (extract) and sassy_zip (zip archive) by explicitly naming the archive type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools or any conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose statement.

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