img_rs_analysis

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

The description reveals the method (RS analysis) and output (LSB embedding rate per channel), but with no annotations, it fails to disclose whether the tool modifies the image, expected return format, error handling, or format restrictions. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 deliver the essential technical method and purpose without extraneous text. Front-loading the method name followed by a brief explanation is efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality adequately. However, the lack of output format description (e.g., numeric rates per channel) leaves minor ambiguity about what the agent receives.

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 single parameter file_path is fully described in the input schema. The description adds no further details about file format constraints, size limits, or examples, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage, but 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 explicitly states the tool performs RS steganalysis using the Fridrich-Goljan-Du method, analyzing pixel groups to estimate LSB embedding rate per channel. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like img_lsb_detect or img_chi_square.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternative steganalysis methods (e.g., img_chi_square, img_lsb_detect). The description lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage without direction.

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