img_appended_data

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it checks for hidden data past specific markers, but does not describe whether it modifies files, required permissions, or output format. Lacks details on error handling when no data found.

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 and specific details. No superfluous words.

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 lacks return value information (e.g., boolean or extracted data). For a simple single-param tool, it is mostly adequate but missing output context.

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?

Single parameter file_path with full schema coverage. Description does not add significant meaning beyond 'Path to image file' already in schema. Mentions supported formats but that is general behavior, not parameter-specific.

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 extract), resource (data appended after image EOF marker), and specifies file types (PNG, JPEG, BMP). Distinguishes from sibling tools like img_lsb_detect by focusing on post-EOF data.

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?

Implies usage for detecting hidden data after EOF, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., other steganography tools). No when-not or alternative mentions.

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