img_detect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool runs multiple non-destructive analyses and returns a JSON report. It does not mention any destructive actions or side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only detection tool.

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: the first states the purpose, and the second lists the methods and output. No superfluous words, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action.

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 mentions the return of a comprehensive JSON report, which is valuable despite no output schema. For a detection tool with multiple built-in algorithms, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities, though it could hint at report structure.

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 only parameter is 'file_path' with a schema description of 'Path to image file'. The description does not add additional meaning such as supported formats or size limits. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score 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 clearly states that the tool detects steganography in images using multiple methods like chi-square, RS analysis, entropy, metadata, appended data, and tool signature checks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like img_chi_square or img_rs_analysis by being a comprehensive detection tool.

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 comprehensive steganography detection but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The list of methods gives context, but without direct guidance, the agent must infer usage.

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