websex_zsteg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: argv is passed directly with no shell parsing (a real safety/quoting property) and execution is scoped to the engagement namespace. It omits permissions, error/exit behavior, and output characteristics, but the argv/no-shell detail is genuine value beyond structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the invocation model, then the path/namespace convention. No filler; each sentence adds something, though the phrasing is somewhat terse rather than maximally efficient.

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 not be explained. But with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves stdin semantics and permission/error behavior unaddressed. It is adequate for a thin CLI wrapper but not complete for a four-parameter tool.

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 all four parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates: it explains that `arguments` are argv tokens, that execution runs from the engagement namespace (engagement_id), and that relative paths suit artifacts (working_directory). The `stdin` parameter is never addressed, so the gap is only partly closed.

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: run `zsteg` from the WebSex forensics toolkit. An agent knows it is a steganography-detection binary wrapper, but the description does no sibling differentiation against nearby tools like websex_steghide, websex_binwalk, or websex_foremost, so the choice between them is left to the agent's own knowledge of zsteg.

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 gives operational context (engagement namespace, relative paths) but never says when to reach for zsteg versus the other stego/forensics siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It is invocation mechanics, not usage guidance.

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