img_chi_square

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the detection mechanism (testing equalization of adjacent pixel values) but does not describe the output format, return type, or behavior for non-stego images. This is a meaningful but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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 redundancy. First sentence states the tool's identity, second explains the detection method. Every word 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?

For a single-parameter detection tool, the description explains the technique but omits the expected output (e.g., boolean, score, detailed report). Given no output schema, this is a notable gap in completeness.

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?

There is only one parameter (file_path) with schema description 'Path to image file'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate with no added 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a chi-square steganalysis attack for detecting LSB replacement, working on each color channel independently. It uses specific verb 'detects' and resource 'LSB replacement', and distinguishes from siblings like img_lsb_detect and img_rs_analysis by specifying the technique.

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 the tool should be used when LSB replacement detection is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., RS analysis, ensemble methods) or any exclusion criteria. Usage context is only implied.

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