Get Metadata

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, and it says nothing about whether this is a read-only/non-mutating call, whether it requires an active database, or how the optional timeout and instance_id affect behavior. Enumerating return fields is mild value but not behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentence with zero filler; the core action and returned fields are front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing content.

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?

For a simple zero-required-parameter read tool with fully documented params, the description is adequate, and the field list partially compensates for the absent output schema. However, it omits any note about required state (open IDB) or the read-only nature, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so both optional parameters (timeout, instance_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Get IDB metadata') and enumerates the fields returned (input_file, arch, bits, endian, hash), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like survey_binary or list_databases, but no sibling is a close enough overlap to cause confusion.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an open database/IDB must exist), and no alternatives such as survey_binary for broader binary summaries. Usage is only implied by the tool name and returned fields.

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