detect_crypto_in_file

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lists detected algorithms but doesn't state read-only nature, performance characteristics, or potential false positives. Adequate but incomplete for a scanning 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then enumerated algorithms, then clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value. No fluff.

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?

One simple parameter, output schema exists, but description doesn't mention that the tool is non-destructive or any limitations (e.g., only first N bytes). Still sufficiently complete for a scanning 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 has one param with no description. Description adds 'Absolute path to the file', which is critical information beyond schema. With 0% schema coverage, description compensates well.

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?

Clear verb-resource pair: 'Scan a binary file for known cryptographic algorithm constants and signatures.' Distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_strings (strings) and analyze_code_flow (control flow).

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?

Implies use for binary file scanning, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs siblings (e.g., extract_strings for strings) or when not to use (e.g., unsupported algorithms, large files). No alternatives mentioned.

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