forensics_foremost

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'Carve files' without disclosing that foremost is used for data carving/recovery, what output is produced, or any prerequisites. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It adds little value beyond the tool's name and fails to earn its place by providing operational 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?

For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the tool correctly, the expected output format, or what inputs are needed, making it inadequate for an agent to use safely.

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 schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'file' refers to, the meaning of 'output_dir', or how 'additional_args' are used, leaving the agent without necessary semantic context.

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 states a specific action ('carve files') and tool name, but lacks context about what kind of input (e.g., raw disk images) or recovery use case, making it somewhat ambiguous relative to other forensic siblings such as binwalk or steghide.

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 versus alternatives like forensics_binwalk or forensics_steghide. The description does not mention relevant scenarios like file carving from raw images.

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