cyberchef_extract_entities

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the entire disclosure burden. It reasonably frames the operation as non-destructive scanning and enumerates entity categories, but it doesn't describe the output shape, possible entity list size, or extraction limitations. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and input scope, then gives useful examples of the entity types, earning its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description gives enough context for correct invocation: what input to pass and what to expect conceptually. The only gap is explicit return formatting, but that is a modest omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already describes the text parameter as 'unstructured text, log excerpt, or payload from which to extract forensic artifacts' with 100% coverage. The description repeats the same idea without adding parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 concrete action ('Scans... to extract') and names the resource type (unstructured text, logs, memory dumps, decompiled scripts) plus the security entity classes extracted. This clearly separates it from transformation tools like cyberchef_from_base64 or cyberchef_url_decode.

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 clearly identifies the intended inputs and scenario: raw or semi-structured text, logs, memory dumps, and decompiled scripts. It doesn't name sibling alternatives or give explicit exclusion conditions, but the use case is clear enough that an agent can select it without guessing.

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