websex_steghide

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: argv is passed directly with no shell parsing (a security-relevant execution guarantee) and execution happens in the engagement namespace. It omits key traits such as whether steghide prompts for a passphrase, whether embedding overwrites existing files, and how stdin is consumed.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than bloated, which is the safer failure mode for a CLI-wrapper tool.

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 need no explanation, and the argv/path mechanics are covered. But with zero annotation coverage, four parameters, and 0% schema descriptions, the definition leaves an agent guessing about passphrase handling, overwrite risk, and when this beats its steganography sibling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the `arguments` parameter (raw argv tokens, no shell interpretation) and `working_directory` (relative paths resolve inside the engagement namespace), but says nothing about `stdin` — notable since steghide commonly needs a passphrase, and stdin is the obvious channel — nor about engagement_id scoping semantics.

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+resource: it runs the `steghide` binary from the toolkit. However, it never says what steghide is for (embedding/extracting data in JPEG/BMP/WAV/AU files), so an agent unfamiliar with the binary gets no functional signal, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling websex_zsteg beyond the tool name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over websex_zsteg or websex_binwalk, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. a passphrase or an existing carrier file). The only contextual hint is the relative-path instruction, which is a mechanics note rather than usage routing.

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