identify_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is computed and that the operation is 'cheap,' which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what permissions are needed, or whether any side effects occur.

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?

One tightly packed sentence, front-loaded with the tool's action and followed by the exact data it returns. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler.

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 simple one-parameter inspection tool with an output schema, the description covers the outputs and cost well enough for an agent to call it. It is slightly incomplete because it leaves the 'path' parameter and read-only safety implicit.

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% and the single 'path' parameter is not mentioned in the description at all. While the parameter is obvious from its name, the description does not clarify whether it expects a local filesystem path, a URL, or something else.

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 and resource ('Identify a file') and enumerates the exact outputs: format by magic bytes, size, MD5/SHA1/SHA256 hashes, and entropy. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from format-specific siblings like pe_info, elf_info, or macho_info.

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 phrase 'Cheap first look' gives clear context for when to reach for this tool—early, before deeper analysis. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a fully explicit routing instruction.

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