identify_obfuscation

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 describes what the tool detects, that input is JS source, and returns obfuscation type, confidence, unpack hints, and deobfuscation strategy. It implies read-only analysis but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states purpose and lists examples, the second specifies input and output. No waste; every word earns its place.

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 single parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and unrelated sibling tools, the description provides everything needed: what the tool does, required input, and output structure. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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 100% for the single parameter 'source' (described as 'JavaScript source code to analyze'). The description repeats this nearly verbatim ('Input: JS source code'), adding minimal new semantic value beyond stating the input context.

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's purpose: identifying obfuscation/packing techniques in JavaScript code. It lists specific techniques (webpack, AAEncode, JJEncode, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on crypto, anti-debug, etc.

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 analyzing JS code for obfuscation, and siblings are unrelated (crypto, anti-debug), so it's sufficiently clear. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool guidance, which prevents a 5.

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