analyse_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers notable value: it discloses what the response contains and gives a strong interpretation caveat that null verdicts mean 'no answer, not a negative' and must not be reported as clean. It omits whether the file is uploaded off-machine, whether the operation is read-only/non-destructive to the file, and any size/format/latency limits, which are relevant gaps for a forensic tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return content, then the critical null-semantics warning, then args — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The null explanation is longer than strictly necessary and the Args block partially restates the schema, but both earn their place given the 0% schema coverage and the risk of misreading nulls.

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 the return format needn't be fully spelled out, and the description still covers the fields that matter for correct interpretation. Remaining gaps are the operation's read-only character, whether the file leaves the local machine, and supported formats/size envelopes — useful but not fatal for calling it 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds real meaning for all three parameters: file_path accepts local paths with ~ and relative forms, face_detection locates faces and returns a count, and text_detection runs OCR and returns detected text, with both defaulting on to match the API. That fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 (run forensic analysis) and resource (local image or video) plus the output shape (per-file verdicts, A–F grade, metadata, manipulation evidence, hidden content). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling hide_file/reveal_file/convert_file operations.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb — you use this when you want a forensic verdict on a file — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no reference to the sibling tools or to how this relates to convert_file/reveal_file workflows. Nothing is misleading, but the routing guidance is left to inference.

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