xp3_re_try_schemes

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool ranks results by file-magic score, but does not disclose whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, or how the brute force operates. It also fails to mention failure modes or side effects.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and key options, with no wasted words. It is well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making the short description insufficient. It lacks details on the meaning of file-magic score, how schemes are ranked, prerequisites, and expected output. Context from sibling tools suggests this is part of a larger workflow, but the description does not situate it within that workflow.

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 description mentions 'built-in XP3 schemes' and 'XOR brute', which map to the schemes and xor_brute parameters, but it provides no details on the required path parameter or how the parameters interact. With only 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented required property.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Try built-in XP3 schemes'), an optional enhancement ('XOR brute'), and a ranking output ('rank by file-magic score'). It distinguishes from siblings like xp3_list_schemes, which only list schemes, and xp3_resolve_scheme, which resolves a single scheme.

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 use when attempting to identify or decrypt XP3 archives with built-in schemes and optional XOR brute-forcing, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like xp3_re_xor_recover or xp3_list_schemes. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, leaving usage context inferred.

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