Check if a file is a Shadow Monitor bundle

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses it is a cheap probe, does not index events, and returns specific fields. Does not mention side effects (likely none) or permissions, but is transparent about its scope.

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?

Two sentences with critical information front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose: first states function and return, second clarifies non-indexing and usage hint. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description lists return fields. It covers behavior (no indexing) and usage. Does not mention error cases or format of return, but is sufficient for a simple probe tool.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond schema: it rephrases path as 'local path' and mentions optional passphrase for encrypted exports. No additional semantic depth.

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 it checks if a local path is a workable Shadow Monitor diagnostic export (with specific file extensions) and lists the return fields. It distinguishes itself from 'load_bundle' by positioning as a preliminary probe.

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?

Explicitly says 'use before load_bundle when the path is unfamiliar, or when load_bundle might fail', providing clear context. Does not explicitly exclude other siblings, but the guidance is strong.

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