unpack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that unpacking is complete, has no size limits, handles any objects, writes to a separate temporary directory, and returns a path with both an organized tree and a raw .v8unpack_raw layer. It does not cover temporary directory cleanup or lifecycle, but it discloses the key side effects and 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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes: the operation, supported formats, scope, temporary location, workflow position, and return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 description is sufficient for invoking the tool correctly: it identifies the input file types, what the unpack does, and what it returns. The presence of an output schema covers further return details, and the workflow hint links it to the tool family. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how the returned temporary directory interacts with the cleanup tool.

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 the file_path parameter. It does so by specifying the supported 1C file extensions and clarifying that the parameter refers to a file to be fully unpacked. For a single simple path parameter, this adds meaningful context beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb ('распаковка'), resource ('файла 1С'), and supported file extensions (.cf/.cfe/.epf/.erf), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from repack and other siblings by positioning itself as the first step in any cycle and by describing its full unpacking behavior.

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 'Первый шаг любого цикла' gives clear workflow context: this tool should be used before other operations on 1C files. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as unpack_async or cleanup, but it implies the normal sequence well enough for an agent to make a reasonable choice.

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