kirikiri_cxdec_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. It says 'static probe,' which hints at a read-only analysis, but does not disclose side effects, return values, prerequisites, or limitations beyond the parameter names. This is minimal information for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 line, front-loaded with the tool category and using a slash-separated list to enumerate functions. It has no wasted words, but the structure is cryptic and mixes concepts without proper punctuation, which slightly hurts readability.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool. It lists three modes but does not explain what the probe returns, how params interact, or which mode to choose. For a 4-parameter tool, this is incomplete.

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 schema already describes all four parameters (url, path, folder, game_dir) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a light mapping to capabilities like 'archive:// URL map' and 'game scan,' but does not explicitly connect these to the parameters. It adds some value but does not go beyond the schema.

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 the tool as a 'CxdecHelper static probe' and lists three specific capabilities (IsCxdecArchive, archive:// URL map, game scan), which points to a clear resource (cxdec archives) and action (probing). It distinguishes from siblings like archive_probe by focusing on cxdec, but lacks a strong verb and uses domain jargon, so it is not a 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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xp3_re_analyze or archive_probe. The three listed functions imply some use cases, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or references to other tools.

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