pe_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. It does convey that this is a static inspection yielding structured metadata, which implies a non-destructive read, but it never states read-only behavior, whether the sample is executed or sandboxed, or that results are truncated by caps. With no annotation coverage and no safety/limit disclosure, this is only partially adequate.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and format qualifier before the feature list, with no filler. It is compact for the amount of content, though it reads as a return-value dump rather than prose tuned to decision-making.

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 enumerating headers, mitigations, imports, and exports in the description is largely redundant with structured data. What an agent actually needs to call it correctly—parameter semantics and usage/alternative guidance—is absent, leaving it minimally viable for this 3-parameter analysis 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 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It only gestures at two of them by listing 'imports (by DLL), and exports', without explaining that max_imports/max_exports are truncation limits or what happens when exceeded, and it says nothing about the required 'path' parameter's expected form.

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?

It names a specific artifact class and verb ('Full PE/PE32+ analysis for Windows .exe/.dll/.sys'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like elf_info, macho_info, and wasm_info without the agent opening any schema. The scope of analysis (headers through exports) is stated concretely.

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 Windows-PE format qualifier implies when the tool applies versus elf_info/macho_info, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no guidance on whether it is meant for triage versus deep reverse engineering (vs. ghidra_decompile or radare2).

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