repack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the basic operation (create a file from a directory) but does not disclose whether the output file is overwritten, whether the operation is blocking, what happens on invalid input, or any side effects. For a write-like operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

One dense sentence holds all essential information: the action, source, destination, and the dependency on unpack. No filler words, no redundant restatement of the tool name, and the key relationship is placed early.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The two parameters are semantically covered, and the unpack dependency is stated. However, for a tool that likely creates files, the absence of behavior notes (overwrite, async/sync, error conditions) makes it only minimally complete.

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 maps dir_path to 'unpacked catalog' and output_path to 'target file', giving both parameters concrete meaning that the bare schema lacks. It stops short of explaining path formats or constraints, but the mapping is explicit and useful.

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 uses a specific verb ('assemble'), names the resource ('1C file'), and states the source ('unpacked directory') and destination ('target file'). It also explicitly ties the input to the 'unpack' result, which distinguishes it from the other tools in the sibling list.

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 phrase 'result of unpack' clearly implies this tool is used after unpacking, giving workflow context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as repack_async, nor does it state when to prefer the synchronous over the asynchronous variant.

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