elf_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does contribute by listing the concrete analysis outputs the agent will receive. However, it says nothing about side effects, whether the file must exist locally, permission needs, or truncation behavior. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single dense sentence with the platform scope front-loaded and the payload enumerated compactly. Every token is doing work; there is no filler.

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 explained, and the description covers the scope well. The gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which leaves a real invocation question unanswered for a two-parameter 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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters, and the description compensates for neither. 'path' is self-evident, but 'limit' (default 300) is completely unaddressed — an agent cannot tell what it bounds (sections, imports, strings) or what happens when truncated.

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 resource (ELF) and verb (analysis), then enumerates the concrete artifacts it extracts: header, arch, PIE/NX, interpreter, needed libraries, sections, imports/exports. The '(Linux/Unix)' qualifier implicitly separates it from pe_info and macho_info, though it never names those siblings directly.

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: an agent must infer from '(Linux/Unix)' that this is the right tool for ELF binaries and that pe_info/macho_info cover other formats. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement.

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