extract-metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by stating it runs external analysis tools, calculates a hash, and interprets extension/MIME mismatches (including the crucial clarification that mismatches are not malware). However, it does not explicitly confirm side effects or permissions, which is a minor gap.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary actions and then add a key interpretive note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

The tool is relatively straightforward, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the hash value, MIME type, metadata fields) or error handling. It adequately covers the 'why' and the analytical interpretation but leaves the return value unspecified for the agent.

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?

The schema has one parameter (filePath) with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description references 'evidence file' which gives context to the parameter's role, but it does not explain format, constraints, or acceptable values beyond the schema's minLength. This partially compensates but leaves room for improvement.

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 specifies the tool's function: run real file and ExifTool analysis, calculate SHA-256, and compare extension with MIME type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract-strings and analyze-memory-dump by outlining unique actions and the analytical goal.

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 implies use for forensic evidence files needing metadata extraction and file-type discrepancy checks. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it stops 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.