kirikiri_scramble_tree

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only states file types and symmetry, but fails to mention that scrambling modifies files in place by default (unless output is provided), that files become 'FE FE' when scrambled (per force parameter description), or any prerequisites/reversibility. This leaves the agent without critical safety context.

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 entire description is one concise sentence with little fluff and a clear front-loaded verb. It includes only essential information and references a sibling without verbose explanation.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be a complete tool guide. It omits behavioral details, mode semantics, and any warning about the destructive nature of scrambling, meaning an agent would likely need external information before invoking the tool safely.

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 force and output, but input and mode lack descriptions. The phrase 'under a folder' helps clarify that input is the root folder, but the purpose of the mode parameter (0-2) remains completely unexplained. Thus the description adds only marginal meaning 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 states a specific verb ('Scramble') and resource (all .ks/.tjs/.txt/.csv/.ini under a folder). The parenthetical 'symmetric to descramble_tree' clearly distinguishes it from the related sibling, indicating it is the inverse tree-level operation.

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 provides context by naming descramble_tree as the symmetric counterpart, implying the tool is used when you need to scramble an entire directory tree. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over the single-file kirikiri_scramble or detail exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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