kirikiri_psb_try_recovery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the repair action and the algorithm, but it does not disclose whether the input file is modified in place, what the optional 'output' parameter does, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a repair/mutation 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 a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the key action and resource. It is concise and scannable, though it is somewhat cryptic and could benefit from a brief expansion. Every token earns its place, so it merits a high score.

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 (a recovery operation) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it interacts with files, or why MDF-awareness matters. An expert might infer much, but the description alone is incomplete for safe invocation.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter roles. It does not explain 'path' or 'output'; while 'path' might be inferred as the file to repair, 'output' is completely ambiguous. The description adds no meaningful information about either parameter beyond what the schema already shows.

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 ('Repair') and resource ('empty chunk-table header offsets'), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings by referencing the KrKrZ PSBStrMan.TryRecovery algorithm and MDF-awareness. This clearly states what the tool does for someone familiar with the domain.

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 implies a usage context: it is for repairing empty chunk-table header offsets, and the MDF-aware note hints at a specific file variant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other PSB or recovery tools, nor does it mention 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.