Detect binary format

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the detection method (magic bytes, text signatures, entropy), which is useful, but omits output format, limitations, and side-effect information, making it moderate but incomplete.

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?

A single 11-word sentence with no fluff. It states the core purpose immediately and every word contributes to meaning.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and usage context, but it only states the detection approach. It lacks information on output format, supported formats, and input requirements, making it incomplete for a tool with a single required parameter and no output schema.

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 0%, and the description does not mention parameters. The names 'data' and 'inputEncoding' are somewhat self-explanatory, and the enum for inputEncoding is provided in the schema, but the description adds no semantics beyond them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') and specifies the resource ('common binary formats') and method ('magic bytes, text signatures, and entropy'). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like binary_entropy_analysis or proto_auto_detect.

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 proto_auto_detect or binary_entropy_analysis. The usage is only implied for detecting binary formats, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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