unwrap

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: writes text to a .md file, returns the path, and explains why (to avoid bloating MCP protocol). It does not mention error handling or permissions, but the main actions are transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary in the first line, followed by context and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter format. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need elaboration.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description provides detailed semantics for the single parameter 'ref': 'A ref string like "run_id/agent_id", or a JSON object with a "ref" field.' This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 clearly states the action: 'Unwrap an agent result ref — writes the full text to a file and returns the path.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'wrap' and 'run' by explaining that combinators return refs and unwrap extracts the text.

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 explains when to use this tool: after combinators that return refs. It says 'Use unwrap to extract the text when you need it,' implying alternatives like not unwrapping if text isn't needed. It could be more explicit about when not to use it, but the guidance is clear.

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