file_entropy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the computational method (Shannon entropy per block) and the purpose (flagging anomalies). However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or details about the output format, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the core action, and the second adds crucial context. Ideal length and front-loading.

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 is sufficient for a simple analysis tool but lacks details on output structure (since no output schema is provided). It does not mention error handling, prerequisites (e.g., file existence), or expected return format, which an agent might need.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing basic parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by contextualizing block_size as 'section-by-section' and explaining the significance of high-entropy flags, which goes beyond the schema alone.

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 calculates Shannon entropy per block and overall, flagging anomalous high-entropy sections. It specifies the resource (file) and the action (entropy analysis). Though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like crypto_entropy or file_entropy_visual, the context of file-level block analysis is distinct enough.

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 detecting encrypted, compressed, or steganographic data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or context for when not to use are provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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