RecoverComparisonSecret

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it requires a prior completed trace, distinguishes the user-controlled operand, and can return either a direct peer or a single-byte-XOR-transformed peer that still needs independent verification.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by preconditions and the verification caveat. Efficient, though the prose is dense and jargon-heavy.

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?

No output schema exists and 7 parameters are undescribed, so the description should do more. It does convey what is recovered and that results need verification, but leaves return shape, the role of most parameters, and the meaning of 'transform' fixed to auto largely unaddressed for a tool of this complexity.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load, but it only implicitly touches 'probe' and 'transform' (via the XOR mention). trace_id, evidence_path, overwrite, probe_format, and expected_operand are undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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+resource+scope: 'Recover comparison candidates from exact API-trace operand evidence.' This is clearly distinguishable from the many debug/trace siblings since no other tool recovers comparison operands. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

Gives clear operating context: it 'consumes completed strcmp/strncmp/memcmp/wide-string calls' and requires 'a known probe,' and it mandates verification via 'an independent launch of the target.' No explicit when-not or named alternative among siblings, but the preconditions and required follow-up are well stated.

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