kali_file_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It vaguely hints at analysis and extraction but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., whether it reads file metadata, extracts data, or performs destructive operations), what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like. This leaves critical behavioral traits undefined.

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 a single, concise phrase ('File analysis and extraction tools') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is overly brief and under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no annotations, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite efficient structure.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'analysis and extraction' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's function and use it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the three parameters (tool, file, options). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining tool choices or option formats, but the schema adequately covers the basics, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'File analysis and extraction tools' states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions both analysis and extraction, which gives a vague sense of function, but doesn't specify what resources are involved or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'kali_forensics' or 'kali_reverse_engineering' that might overlap in file-related tasks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and input parameters alone, with no reference to sibling tools that might handle similar functions.

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