list_archive

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: contents are read server-side without downloading, and a PENDING status means an in-progress read that should be retried. It stops short of saying whether results are truncated or how a PENDING response is shaped, so with annotations already covering safety the added value is moderate rather than rich.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core operation and its key constraint front-loaded before the async PENDING caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 four-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and a present output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, format set, and the one non-obvious behavior (asynchronous PENDING). Remaining gaps, cursor semantics and the path/node_id precedence, are modest but real.

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 75% and the schema itself documents dir, path, and node_id, including format examples, so the description contributes little parameter-level detail. "one directory at a time" loosely motivates dir and cursor paging, but cursor remains undocumented in both places and the path-vs-node_id choice is not resolved.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List what is inside an archive file") and enumerates supported formats plus the non-downloading scope, so the operation is unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from extraction siblings by stressing "without downloading it," but it never names extract_archive as the alternative, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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?

"one directory at a time" tells the agent to navigate level by level rather than expect a full recursive listing, and the PENDING note tells it to retry instead of treating the response as an error. What is missing is explicit guidance on choosing this over extract_archive or list_files, and on how to advance the cursor.

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