guess_checks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavioral detail: which checksums are computed (sum8, xor8, crc16-ccitt), at which byte positions, and the start/end marker assumptions. However, it omits whether markers are fixed or inferred, error behavior for malformed hex, and that the operation is a read-only analysis.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded before the detailed checksum spec, and every sentence carries technical content. The phrasing is dense but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and the algorithm is well covered. The remaining gap is the parameter format and the assumptions about leading/trailing markers, which an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single payload_hex parameter, and it only implies the format via the phrase 'one hex payload'. It does not specify prefix, case, whitespace tolerance, or byte-length constraints, leaving format details to be guessed.

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 verb and resource: it names which checksums and length fields a hex payload is consistent with. The purpose is clear and distinguishable from siblings like diff and try_keys, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 when-to-use guidance is given and no alternatives are named, despite sibling tools (diff, try_keys) that plausibly overlap in the 'analyze a payload' space. The agent must infer that this is for reverse-engineering checksum schemes.

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