file_embedded

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that scanning occurs at every offset for magic bytes, but does not discuss performance implications (e.g., long scan times on large files) or potential false positives. The binwalk analogy adds some context, but limitations are absent.

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?

Description is a single concise sentence with two clauses, no redundant wording. The binwalk analogy efficiently conveys context. A second sentence could add value (e.g., output format), but as is, 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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., list of offsets, file types). It covers the core purpose and method but lacks details on output format, edge cases, or performance characteristics, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding for a scanning tool of this complexity.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; 'scan_depth' is already described in the schema as 'Bytes to scan (default: full file)'. 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?

Description clearly states that the tool scans for embedded files within a binary by searching for magic byte signatures, similar to binwalk. It explicitly distinguishes itself by focusing on hidden, appended files, and concatenated archives, which differentiates it from siblings like file_appended or file_strings.

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 usage for binary file analysis via the binwalk analogy, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned among the many sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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