bpcs_detect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the internal algorithm (complexity map across bit planes and channels, checking ratio of complex blocks). It does not disclose error handling or performance, but the core read-only detection behavior is well described.

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?

Two concise sentences, zero waste. First sentence front-loads the purpose, second provides the technical method. Every word earns its place.

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 description explains the detection logic and parameters but does not mention the output format (e.g., returns true/false or a confidence score). For a detection tool with no output schema, this is a gap. File type restrictions are covered in schema, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add information beyond what the schema already provides for both file_path and threshold. The threshold's range and default are already in the schema description.

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 it auto-detects BPCS steganography, specifying the verb 'auto-detect' and the resource 'BPCS steganographic embedding'. It explains the detection method (complexity map on all bit planes and channels) and mentions the signature of BPCS, which distinguishes it from siblings like bpcs_extract or bpcs_capacity.

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 suspecting BPCS embedding, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. The context is clear, but lacking explicit when-not advice keeps it from a perfect score.

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