recover_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. It explains the recovery approach (reverse-tracking raw bytes, rebuilding signatures, carving) but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key information, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description could explain return values or failure modes. It does not. However, given the sufficient schema coverage and focused purpose, it is moderately complete.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'recover' and the resource 'damaged ZIP, PNG, JPEG, SQLite files', distinguishing it from sibling tools like disassemble_binary or steg_decode, which have unrelated purposes.

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 usage when files are corrupted, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool vs alternatives. However, the sibling tools are clearly unrelated, making the context sufficiently clear.

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