steghide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions passphrase-protected embedding and the expected output ('embedded file confirmation or extracted hidden content'), which is genuinely useful. It does not disclose whether operations modify the cover file, what happens on wrong passphrases, or whether extraction requires matching the embedding passphrase, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a security 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the first phrase immediately identifies the tool as a steganography tool and its supported formats. The use-case sentence and output note are both informative and non-redundant. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has three operation modes (info, embed, extract) and multiple interdependent parameters, but the description does not explain how to combine parameters per mode or what the 'info' output looks like. The input schema fills in parameter roles, so this is not severely incomplete, but for a tool without an output schema and no annotations, more operational context would be expected.

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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful format context (JPEG, BMP, WAV, AU) and passphrase usage, but it does not explain the relationships between command, cover_file, embed_file, stego_file, and passphrase beyond what the schema already states. This is adequate but not additive.

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 clear verb+resource: it hides data within JPEG/BMP/WAV/AU files and extracts hidden data from them. It also names the primary use cases (CTF detection, data concealment), so an agent can identify the tool's job. It does not explicitly differentiate it from steganography-adjacent siblings like exiftool or binwalk, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 useful usage context—'Use to detect hidden messages in files (CTF challenges) or to conceal data'—which implies when to reach for the tool. However, it does not contrast it with alternatives such as exiftool for metadata or binwalk for file carving, nor does it state when not to use steghide. The guidance is present but implicit and incomplete.

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