binary_inspect

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

Annotations already declare read-only safety and a closed-world scope. The description adds useful constraints ('allowed ordinary disk file') and optional hash streaming, but does not state return format, error behavior, size limits, or what 'allowed' entails.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It stays focused on the core operation and optional behavior.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the one-sentence description leaves too much unspecified: return shape, hash format, path rules, and sibling differentiation. Annotations cover read-only safety but not enough to make this definition complete for an inspection 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%, so the description must compensate. It alludes to the path parameter ('disk file') and the hashes parameter ('requested hashes'), but gives no format, accepted algorithms, or path constraints, leaving both parameters largely unspecified.

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 names a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('allowed ordinary disk file'), plus an optional behavior around hashes. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like binary_read or binary_search.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not conditions. The phrase 'optionally streaming requested hashes' hints at a use case but does not route the agent among siblings such as binary_read, binary_search, or binary_diff.

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