file_cmd

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

Without annotations, the description needs to disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'series of tests' and detection of formats, but does not address safety, performance, or what happens when the 'file' parameter is null. Adequate but not thorough.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, but the second paragraph largely restates the first. It is reasonably concise and avoids 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 presence of an output schema and high schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's functionality and common file types, though it omits behavior when 'file' is null and does not confirm it is a read-only operation.

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%, with each parameter already described. The tool description adds common options for 'args' (-b, -z, -i) but adds no additional semantics for 'file'. Baseline 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 states the tool runs the 'file' command to determine file type, listing supported formats (ELF, PE, archives, images) and the mechanism (magic bytes). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like binwalk or strings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., binwalk for firmware, strings for text). No explicit conditions or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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