archive_detect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses what the tool checks (slack spaces, prepended data, appended data, extra fields, comments), giving a clear understanding of its behavior. It implies read-only detection.

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 two sentences with no wasted words, efficiently listing all detection methods. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 (multiple detection techniques), the description fully covers what it does. With one parameter and no output schema, no further detail is necessary.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, but the description adds contextual value by explaining that the tool analyzes the archive for hidden data, helping the agent understand the parameter's role in a broader task.

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 tool auto-detects steganography in ZIP archives and lists specific techniques, distinguishing it from siblings that focus on individual aspects like comments or extra fields.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs siblings, the description's comprehensive list of checks implies it's for a broad scan, and the sibling tools are more specific. This provides good context without explicit exclusions.

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