audio_lsb_detect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the chi-square method and grouping by value pairs, but does not disclose the output format (e.g., p-value, boolean), error conditions, or limitations (e.g., only works on uncompressed WAV). Partial transparency leaves gaps.

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: the first states the tool's function, the second details the method. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly tighter (e.g., combining sentences). No wasted words.

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 single-parameter detection tool with no output schema, the description explains the method but omits the output format (e.g., returns a chi-square statistic or detection verdict). This leaves the agent uncertain about how to interpret results.

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 (file_path), documented as 'Path to WAV file'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's function: PCM sample LSB statistical analysis using a chi-square test to detect LSB replacement steganography in WAV audio. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like audio_lsb_extract (extraction) and audio_echo_detect (different technique).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audio_detect, img_chi_square) or when not to use it. The description only states what it detects, but lacks context for selection among many sibling tools.

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