cyberchef_analyse

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds context the annotations cannot: this is a dispatcher onto sub-analyses rather than a single fixed operation, and its argument shape varies per selected tool. It stops short of describing return format or failure modes.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause and keeps the workflow and exclusion rules tight. The five-item example list is slightly long but each example maps to a distinct analysis class, so it earns most of its space.

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 dispatcher tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, how to discover valid tools, how to obtain per-tool argument schemas, and the key exclusion. No return-value description is required since no output schema exists.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including that `tool` accepts either form and that `arguments` matches the schema from cyberchef_describe_operation. The description largely repeats that routing advice, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields — baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('run one of this server's analysis tools') and distinguishes it sharply from siblings by declaring 'These are NOT operations and cannot be used in a cyberchef_bake recipe.' Concrete examples (XOR key length, classical cipher, hash ID, X.509 chain, post-quantum key) make the scope unambiguous without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit three-step workflow — 'List them with cyberchef_categories, get a schema with cyberchef_describe_operation, then run it here' — and a clear negative rule against using it in cyberchef_bake recipes. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated, with the alternative tools named.

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