file_polyglot

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Discloses checking multiple file signatures at offsets, a core behavior. However, omits side effects, permissions, or output format (e.g., boolean vs list). Adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then examples and use context. No filler, every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, description would benefit from hinting at return type (e.g., 'returns a list of detected formats'). Otherwise, covers the tool's domain well: purpose, method, and typical scenarios.

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?

Only one parameter with schema description 'Path to file'. Tool description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining what the tool does with the file (checks signatures at offsets), though it does not clarify parameter constraints or format. Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds value.

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 verb 'Detect' and resource 'polyglot files', defines them as valid in multiple formats simultaneously, and gives examples (PDF+ZIP, PNG+PDF). Distinct from siblings like file_identify or file_embedded.

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?

Mentions use cases (CTF, forensics) but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among many sibling file analysis tools. Implies usage but lacks explicit guidance.

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