cyberchef_plaintext_check

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail by listing the exact evidence reported (printable ratio, English word hits, chi-squared, index of coincidence) and the verdict-plus-reason output, going beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 core purpose, then delivers a compact list of reported evidence and a practical use case. Every sentence contributes either purpose, output clarity, or usage guidance, with no filler.

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 sufficiently covers return content by naming the evidence fields and the verdict/reason. It also provides the key context for when this tool is useful, while the schema and annotations cover parameter constraints and safety. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 the schema already explains that 'input' is the candidate and 'language' selects the English model. The description reinforces the notion of a candidate and mentions English, but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific action ('Decide whether a candidate is plaintext') and a concrete resource/output (verdict plus deciding evidence). It also distinguishes itself from CyberChef operations by explaining that they expose statistics, not the verdict, which differentiates it from siblings like cyberchef_entropy_scan.

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 clear context: it is the stopping condition when peeling layers off unknown data by hand, and positions the tool as the judgement an automatic-decoding search needs. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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