spread_watermark_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 describes the analysis method but does not mention that the tool is read-only, lacks permission requirements, or what happens on non-image files. The method explanation is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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, directly stating the purpose and method without any extraneous information. It is concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description omits any info about return values or output format (e.g., boolean, confidence score). The tool's functionality is explained, but the lack of output details leaves ambiguity. Sibling context partially compensates by showing similar detection tools.

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%, so the parameters (file_path, block_size) are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs statistical watermark detection via variance comparison, describing the method (divides into blocks, compares variance). It distinguishes from sibling spread spectrum tools like spread_correlation by focusing on variance patterns.

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 explains how the tool works but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs other watermark detection tools (e.g., spread_correlation, spread_dft_analysis). Usage context is implied but not stated.

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