apply_flirt_signature

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 discloses that the tool applies a signature for library function identification, implying a read-like operation that modifies the analysis state but does not destroy data. It provides an example input. However, it does not mention what happens if the signature doesn't match, whether the operation can be undone, or if it requires specific permissions. Overall, adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences and very efficient, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides a specific example. However, it could include additional context (like prerequisites) in a third sentence without harming conciseness.

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 tool has 1 required parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is somewhat complete but omits important aspects: what the output schema returns (e.g., list of identified functions?), what happens on failure, and whether the signature must already be in the FLIRT database. The sibling `list_flirt_signatures` suggests a prerequisite step, but this is not mentioned.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter `sig_name`. The description says 'Pass the signature name (e.g. 'vc64rtf' for MSVC runtime)', which adds concrete examples and purpose but does not specify format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed characters, that it may be a filename without extension). The description adds some value beyond the schema, which only provides the parameter title 'Sig Name'.

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 applies a FLIRT signature file (.sig) to identify library functions in stripped binaries, specifying the verb 'apply', the resource 'FLIRT signature file', and the context 'stripped binaries'. It distinguishes from siblings like `load_type_library` or `list_flirt_signatures` by focusing on the application of a specific signature, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from `list_flirt_signatures` which lists available signatures rather than applying one.

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 gives a usage example ('Pass the signature name (e.g. 'vc64rtf' for MSVC runtime)') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `load_type_library` or `apply_callee_type`. It lacks indications of prerequisites (e.g., binary already loaded, need to match architecture) or situations where it's inappropriate (e.g., if no matching signature exists). No exclusions or sibling differentiations are mentioned.

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