file_header

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details that the tool parses and displays header fields without modifying files, which is good. However, it does not mention limitations (e.g., unsupported formats), performance considerations, or any potential side effects. A 3 reflects adequate but not exceptional transparency.

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. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides concrete examples. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's capability.

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 moderate complexity, one parameter, and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key aspects: target formats and parsed data. It lacks specification of the output format (e.g., text or structured data), but overall it is sufficiently complete for agent invocation.

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?

The input schema has high coverage (100%) with a single parameter 'file_path' described as 'Path to file'. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 a clear verb ('Parses and displays') and resource ('header fields for known file formats'), and lists specific examples (PNG IHDR, JPEG SOF, BMP info header, ZIP local file headers, PDF version/metadata), distinguishing it from sibling tools like file_identify (format identification) or file_hex (raw hex view).

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 low-level structural insight but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear, but no direct guidance on choosing among siblings.

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