websex_foremost

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 usefully discloses execution behavior: it runs foremost directly with supplied argv tokens and never uses shell parsing, and it runs from the engagement namespace. However, it doesn't describe outputs, permissions, or destructive effects, despite having an output schema. Adds some value but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action and execution semantics. No obvious filler, though the namespace/paths sentence is a bit terse and could be clearer.

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 4-param, no-annotation tool with 0% schema description coverage and no parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It omits what each parameter does, what output is produced (despite having an output schema), and how the tool differs from sibling carvers. It would be hard to invoke correctly without experimenting.

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 no parameter descriptions are provided anywhere. The description adds no meaning for any of the four parameters (stdin, arguments, engagement_id, working_directory) beyond generic words like 'relative paths'. With zero coverage, the description must compensate but does not.

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 and resource: 'Run foremost from the WebSex forensics toolkit'. An agent can tell this invokes the foremost file-carving tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many other forensics siblings (scalpel, binwalk, bulk_extractor, zsteg), but the named tool itself provides reasonable separation.

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 says it 'Runs from the selected engagement namespace; use relative paths for engagement artifacts', which implies when/how to use the tool (inside an engagement with relative paths). However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer foremost over sibling carvers like scalpel or bulk_extractor. Implied usage only.

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