extract_file

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 states it extracts a file to local storage but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), permissions required, or behavior with large archives. The write operation implies destructiveness that is not addressed.

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 very concise, with a clear one-line summary followed by parameter definitions in a standard format. However, it could be slightly more structured with a separate 'Use Cases' section to improve readability.

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 tool is simple with 3 parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the basics. However, it misses important context such as error handling (e.g., file not found in archive), network requirements, and example usage. With better annotations, more might be expected.

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. While parameter names are self-explanatory, the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'URL of the remote zip file'). They do not specify expected formats, constraints (e.g., is filename a path inside the archive?), or error conditions. More detail is needed for each parameter.

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 tool extracts a specific file from a remote zip archive to local storage. The verb 'extract' and resource 'specific file from remote zip' are precise, and the tool is distinct from siblings like list_files and get_file_info, which serve informational purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., ensuring the zip is accessible) or scenarios where sibling tools should be used first, such as listing contents before extraction.

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