sassy_unzip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It states the basic action ('extract') but fails to mention important behaviors such as whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories are created, how password errors are handled, or whether the operation is reversible. This is minimal behavioral detail for a file-modifying operation.

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 extremely concise: one short phrase followed by a simple bullet-like parameter list. Every sentence and fragment serves a purpose, with no filler or redundant information.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and all parameter semantics. The output schema exists, so explaining return values is not required. The main gap is the lack of behavioral details (e.g., overwrite behavior, error handling), which prevents it from being fully complete, though the core extraction functionality is well documented.

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 has zero description coverage, providing only parameter names and defaults. The description adds crucial meaning: 'archive: path to .zip file', 'destination: extract to this directory (defaults to archive parent)', and 'password: for encrypted zips'. Every parameter is fully explained, going well beyond the schema.

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 'Extract a zip archive', which is a specific verb and resource. The name 'sassy_unzip' and sibling tools like sassy_zip, sassy_tar, and sassy_untar make the purpose unambiguous and distinctly different from its siblings.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: whenever a zip archive needs extraction. It distinguishes from sassy_zip (which creates zips) and sassy_untar (which extracts tar files), though it does not explicitly say 'use untar for tar files' or provide exclusions. The context is clear, but explicit alternative references are missing.

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