websex_scalpel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that scalpel is invoked directly with argv tokens and that shell parsing is never used, which tells the agent how to pass arguments safely (no quoting/escaping needed). It does not disclose that carving writes output files, where they land, permission needs, or any rate/scope limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and invocation model, with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the content budget could have been spent on more informative material.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a no-annotation tool with 0% parameter coverage the description still leaves too much unresolved: it doesn't say what scalpel produces, what the engagement_id/stdin parameters do, or where carved artifacts end up.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at 'argv tokens' for arguments and relative paths for the engagement namespace, but says nothing about engagement_id or the stdin parameter, leaving half the signature unexplained.

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 identifies the underlying binary ('scalpel') and its toolkit context, but never states what scalpel actually does (file carving/recovery from disk images), and gives no differentiation from carving siblings like websex_foremost or websex_bulk_extractor. An agent knows the verb is 'run' but not the resource's effect.

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 only context given is that it runs from the selected engagement namespace and to use relative paths. There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternative carving/extraction tools among the many siblings.

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