sassy_zip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses useful behavior like default output path and compression modes, but lacks important details such as whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories are processed recursively, or any side effects besides file creation.

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 compact and front-loaded: a single purposeful first sentence followed by a structured parameter list. No filler or redundant content exists—every line conveys essential 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 utility with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and all parameters. Minor gaps exist: no mention of overwrite behavior or directory recursion, and no guidance on using it versus tar/unzip tools. Still, it is sufficient for a straightforward zip creation task.

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 for all parameters. It clearly explains source as the path to zip, output as the destination with a default, and compression with the specific allowed values. This fully covers the parameter semantics beyond the bare schema fields.

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 starts with the specific action 'Create a zip archive from a file or directory', clearly identifying the tool's function and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sassy_unzip and sassy_tar by naming the zip format explicitly.

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 when to use the tool (when creating a zip archive), but gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives such as sassy_tar or sassy_unzip. With many compression-related siblings, an explicit comparison would strengthen this dimension.

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