entropy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds genuinely new behavior: results are capped at 200 rows and paged, and each row has a fixed column layout. It stops short of explaining how the window setting affects detection sensitivity or what an empty result implies, which is a minor gap against an otherwise solid disclosure.

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?

Two dense sentences: the detection criterion and result format come first, the disambiguation and cap follow. There is no filler, and the output row layout is conveyed compactly rather than as prose.

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, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so at least partially via the `off va len entropy` row format plus the 200-row paging note. What's missing is guidance on tuning window versus threshold, which matters for a heuristic scanner whose results depend heavily on those two defaults.

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 limit, offset, window, and threshold are all documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the threshold concept ('at or above threshold bits/byte') and the 200 cap but adds no syntax or tradeoff guidance beyond that, so it does not earn above baseline.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') and a precise object ('packed, compressed or encrypted data'), then defines the detection criterion (chunks at or above threshold bits/byte) and the output shape (`off va len entropy` rows). It also distinguishes itself from the naming step by pointing at borer://protection, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool answers.

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?

It states the triggering condition (looking for packed/compressed/encrypted regions) and redirects the packer-identification sub-task to borer://protection. It does not, however, contrast with adjacent detection tools such as find_crypto_constants or strings, so routing among the analysis siblings is only partly resolved.

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