Restore deleted or orphaned files from a forensic disk image into an output directory, with optional regex path filtering; run as a background job and poll its result.
Background job: recover deleted/orphaned files into out_dir (inside the output root), optionally only paths matching regex. Poll job_result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| part | No | ||
| image | Yes | ||
| out_dir | No | recovered | |
| max_files | No | ||
| path_regex | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full load; it usefully discloses the async job model and that output is confined to out_dir inside the output root. It says nothing about whether the source image is modified, what happens when max_files is hit, or error/failure behavior.
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 with the job model front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably over-compressed — 'Poll job_result' assumes the reader already knows job_result takes a job id.
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 5-parameter background-job tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the async workflow and the output-location safety constraint but leaves three parameters (image, part, max_files) undocumented. Adequate framing, incomplete parameter coverage.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies out_dir (relative to the output root) and the optional path_regex filter. The required 'image' parameter and the 'part' and 'max_files' parameters get no explanation anywhere.
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 ('recover deleted/orphaned files') plus the destination constraint ('into out_dir, inside the output root'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like extract or find, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.
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 phrase 'Background job ... Poll job_result' tells the agent this is asynchronous and which sibling to poll, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over extract/find or any prerequisite/exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.