file_format_analyzer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states the analysis pipeline: identify format, parse containers, and expose chunk hierarchy with offsets, sizes, and metadata. The read-only nature of 'analyze' is strongly implied, covering the main safety concern for an agent.

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?

One sentence packs the purpose, scope, supported container types, and output format without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase contributes to tool selection and invocation.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently describes what the agent can expect to see (offsets, sizes, metadata). It does not mention behavior on unrecognized formats or error conditions, but the core invocation context is complete.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, including defaults and bounds. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond hinting at chunk and offset output, which maps naturally to max_chunks and hexdump_size. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Analyze binary file format structures') and immediately enumerates concrete deliverables: magic-byte identification, container parsing (RIFF/WebP, PNG, ZIP, JPEG, PDF), and chunk hierarchy with offsets, sizes, and metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like analyze_binary or binary_headers.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the task involves recognizing a file format or inspecting container/chunk structure. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the specificity of the listed containers and output makes the intended usage obvious.

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