reveal_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side effect: content is written to disk, with a default location 'alongside the input.' However, it omits failure behavior (wrong password), whether existing files are overwritten, and any permission considerations for a write operation.

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 core action is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block that earns its place by supplying the semantics the empty schema lacks. No filler sentences.

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 return values need no explanation, and all three parameters are documented. The remaining shortfall is behavioral: as an unannotated write tool, error/overwrite behavior is unstated, though the disk-write side effect itself is surfaced.

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, and it does: all three parameters are given semantics beyond their names — stego_path as the suspected carrier file, password as the hiding passphrase, and output_dir as the write target defaulting to alongside the input. Minor gap: no format guidance for password or path strings.

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: 'Extract content hidden inside an image or video, and save it to disk.' This clearly contrasts with the inverse sibling hide_file, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from analyse_file, which is the tool an agent is most likely to confuse it with (detecting vs. recovering content). Clear purpose, no explicit sibling routing.

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 only implied by the phrase 'the file believed to contain hidden content,' which hints that you should already suspect hidden content exists. There is no explicit statement of when to use this over analyse_file (detection) or what prerequisites apply, so the agent must infer the routing.

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