jpegadv_pvd_detect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the detection method but omits critical details: what the output looks like (e.g., boolean, confidence score), whether the tool is purely read-only, and any side effects or requirements (e.g., decompression overhead). The agent is left unsure how to interpret results.

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 at two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds technical detail. Slightly technical language may be less accessible, but overall efficient.

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 tool has a single parameter and no output schema, the description should elaborate on return values or how to interpret detection results. The agent lacks information on success/failure conditions, output format, or false positive considerations, making it incomplete for effective invocation.

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% with a clear description of file_path. The tool description adds little beyond restating 'JPEG file to analyze,' which is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 detects PVD steganography in JPEG files, specifying the method (analyzing pixel difference distributions for staircase patterns) and that it works on decoded pixel data via jpeg-js. It is specific and distinguishable from siblings by its focus on PVD, though it does not explicitly contrast with other jpegadv detect tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jpegadv_f5_detect, jpegadv_jsteg_detect). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or contexts where PVD detection is appropriate.

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