jpegadv_calibration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior: cropping to break DCT alignment and comparing statistics to reveal steganography. However, it omits potential limitations, false positives, or output format, which is needed for a 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise without unnecessary detail.

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 complexity of steganalysis and the absence of an output schema, the description fails to indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean detection result, a confidence score, or statistical data). Also missing are prerequisites or caveats, leaving the agent underinformed about how to use the output.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only implicitly referencing crop_pixels by mentioning 'removing a few pixel rows/columns'. It does not elaborate on file_path or further clarify parameter usage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Crop-recalibrate steganalysis.' It specifies the action (crop and compare statistics) and the resource (JPEG image), and the technique distinguishes it from sibling jpegadv detection tools like jpegadv_f5_detect and jpegadv_jsteg_detect.

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 general steganalysis detection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other jpegadv detection methods). No exclusions or context for choosing this method are provided.

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