wasm_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Parse' implies a non-mutating read and the output fields are listed, but it never states that the file is not modified, how errors on malformed modules surface, or how large output is capped. Adequate for a conventional inspector, but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the operation, the target format, and the extracted data with zero filler. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail in the description is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the listed fields are a good orientation. The gap is parameter coverage: with 0% schema descriptions, the description should have clarified 'limit', leaving the definition only minimally complete.

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 two parameters, and the description mentions neither. 'path' is self-evident, but 'limit' (default 200) is entirely unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether it caps sections, imports, exports, or something else, nor what happens when it is exceeded.

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 (parse) and resource (WebAssembly .wasm module) and enumerates exactly what is extracted: version, section layout, and imported/exported names by kind. The explicit '.wasm' format marker cleanly separates it from the sibling family of format-specific inspectors (pe_info, elf_info, macho_info).

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 format-specific naming implies 'use this when the artifact is a .wasm file', which is workable given the pe_info/elf_info/macho_info sibling set. However it names no alternative and gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g. what happens on malformed input, or whether it handles WASI components).

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