unpack_async

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 clearly discloses background-job execution, immediate {job_id, status:'running'} return, timeout avoidance, and the polling contract—exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the async nature and immediate return behavior, then giving polling instructions. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema existing, the description covers the complete invocation cycle: start the job, receive as job handle, poll with job_status, and receive the same result as unpack. No essential guidance is missing.

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 only parameter is file_path and the schema has 0% description coverage. The description compensates only indirectly by referring to 'unpacking a large 1C file'; it does not explicitly define file_path, path format, or constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory enough to prevent confusion, but no extra semantics are added.

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?

States a specific verb ('unpack'), the resource ('large 1C file'), and the asynchronous behavior that distinguishes it from the sync sibling 'unpack'. The immediate-return job semantics make the tool's function unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly says to poll via job_status until status!='done' and notes the result will match 'unpack'. This gives the agent a clear usage path and an implicit alternative (use sync unpack when file is small or timeout is not a concern).

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