配布用パッケージ (zip) の作成

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the internal zip structure (extract and put into Script, with subfolders) and the default inclusion of all files if 'files' is omitted. This provides useful context about side effects and output format, though it does not cover all edge cases (e.g., overwriting existing output).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes meaning. The first sentence states the source and action, the second clarifies the output structure and default behavior. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: source folder, action, zip structure, and default file inclusion. It is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it omits potential edge cases like error handling or existing output file behavior, which are not critical for basic use.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds high-level context about the output structure and default behavior, but it does not provide additional per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already includes. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('まとめる' / bundle) and resource (scripts in a specific folder) into a distribution zip. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like install_script/uninstall_script by focusing on creating a package rather than installing/uninstalling.

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 indicates the tool's purpose and when it is relevant: to create a distributable zip from the managed folder. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this when packaging scripts rather than installing them.

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