jpegadv_jsteg_detect

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

The description provides good technical detail about the detection mechanism (chi-square test on DCT coefficient pairs, sliding window analysis) and explains what JSteg embedding does. However, it does not discuss potential false positives, detection thresholds, or reliability limitations.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences each serving a distinct purpose (purpose, mechanism, additional analysis feature). No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 omits critical context: there is no output schema or annotation, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, confidence score, detailed report). It also fails to mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., valid JPEG file).

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, file_path, is fully described in the input schema. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, which is already clear. With 100% schema coverage, 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 identifies the tool as a JSteg steganography detector, explains the embedding technique (LSB of non-zero, non-one DCT coefficients), and specifies the detection method (chi-square test on coefficient pairs). This differentiates it from sibling tools like jpegadv_f5_detect or jpegadv_outguess_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 the tool is for detecting JSteg, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., other steganography detection tools) nor when it is not appropriate. No contraindications or required conditions (like file validity) are mentioned.

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