capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is an environment-inspection listing and enumerates exactly what is reported (pefile, lief, capstone, jsbeautifier; optional radare2/r2pipe, Ghidra, YARA), which tells the agent what to expect. It does not state permissions or caching, but for a read-only introspection tool that is a minor gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the one actionable condition for calling it. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 not be described. Combined with the explicit engine list and the missing-dependency trigger, an agent has everything needed to decide when to call this and what it will learn.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level.

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: 'List which analysis engines are available in this install.' The name 'capabilities' is vague on its own, but the description resolves it immediately. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, though no sibling performs this discovery function.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use this first if a tool reports a missing dependency.' That is actionable guidance for an agent that just hit a failure. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use, but the trigger is explicit.

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