xp3_re_xor_recover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the recovery action and hints at two input modes, but fails to disclose any side effects, input format requirements (e.g., hex vs raw), limitations on key length, or what the output looks like. This is insufficient for a tool with no safety annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately concise for a tool whose purpose is clear at a glance.

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?

For a tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is under-specified. It does not cover return values, how to choose between plaintext vs archive entry, or key length constraints. The brevity leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to 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 description adds some semantic grouping by mentioning 'plaintext' and 'cipher' and 'archive entry', which helps map to parameters like cipher, plaintext_hex, and archive. However, with only 17% schema coverage and six parameters, the description only partially compensates; parameters like max_key_len and plaintext_path remain unexplained.

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 the action ('Recover') and the target resource ('repeating XOR key'), and specifies the method ('from known plaintext vs cipher or archive entry'). This is distinct from sibling tools like xp3_re_try_schemes or kirikiri_descramble, which target broader or different operations.

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 implied use case is recovering an XOR key when plaintext-cipher pairs or an archive entry are known. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the phrase 'or archive entry'.

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