detect_file_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It reveals the detection mechanism (magic bytes) and the possible return categories, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that the file is not modified, how errors are handled, or any file size or permission constraints.

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?

It is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then immediately names the recognized formats and the mechanism. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter detection tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the verb, the output categories, and the detection method. The main omission is any explanation of the 'path' parameter, which is left entirely to the schema.

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%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented 'path' parameter. It does not explain whether 'path' is a local filesystem path, a relative path, or a URI, nor does it mention format constraints; the only clue is the schema's title 'Path'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('file'), and enumerates the exact output classes (ELF, PE, Mach-O, APK, JAR, unknown) plus the mechanism ('magic bytes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scan tools such as scan_binary_mitigations or scan_apk, which analyze content rather than classify file type.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a preliminary classification step before using scan_strings, scan_secrets, or scan_binary_mitigations. However, the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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