img_known_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'scans' bytes, suggesting a read-only operation, but does not disclose whether it modifies the file, requires permissions, or handles errors. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of signatures found). It only describes the input and process, leaving the agent guessing about the output format or success indication.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds little beyond the schema's description of file_path. The description mentions 'image file' but does not provide additional constraints or formatting details, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 uses the specific verb 'Scan' and resource 'image file bytes for known steganography tool signatures'. It lists example tools like OpenStego, Steghide, etc., which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like img_lsb_detect or img_chi_square that use different detection methods.

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 this tool is for detecting known tool patterns, which contrasts with statistical or LSB-based detection among siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or context like best-suited scenarios.

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