foremost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the output is 'recovered files organized by type in the output directory', which conveys the main side effect. However, it does not mention whether the source image is modified, potential disk-space usage from recovered files, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers use cases and output in a logical order, making every sentence useful.

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 three-parameter file-carving tool with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete: it defines the source, output, and typical use cases. It could be more complete by covering edge behavior like handling of unrecognized file types or output directory overwrite semantics, but nothing essential for a basic call is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the default for output_dirhol and an example for opts. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'recovers deleted files from disk images and raw data' via 'file carving'. It clearly states the tool's function, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as binwalk, so it stops short of a full 5.

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?

It clearly says when to use this tool: 'for data recovery from formatted drives, corrupted media, or when filesystem metadata is lost.' This gives an agent actionable selection context, though it does not mention when not to use it or point to an alternative.

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