scan_media_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions scanning for corruption or EXIF payloads, but it does not explain potential side effects (e.g., file modification, deletion), required permissions, or the nature of the scan (e.g., read-only). This lack of transparency is significant for a security-related tool.

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 sentence of 12 words, starting with the action verb 'Scan'. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. However, it omits potential limitations (e.g., file size, number of files) and usage constraints, leaving minor gaps.

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% with one parameter described. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying acceptable file types (.png, .jpg, .mp4), which are not in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the JSON array format beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool scans dropped media files for corruption or embedded EXIF payloads, listing specific file types (.png, .jpg, .mp4). This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from unrelated siblings.

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 description implies the tool is used when needing to check media files for corruption or EXIF payloads, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Guidance is implicit.

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