analyze_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Never runs the submitted content', which is the key behavioral guarantee for a static analyzer. It also enumerates what the tool returns, providing useful transparency, though it doesn't cover limitations or edge cases like unsupported languages or input size constraints.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and primary constraint. The only slight redundancy is 'without executing it' followed by 'Never runs the submitted content', which repeats the same idea. Overall it earns its place with no filler.

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?

This is a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema, so the description must provide more operational context. It covers purpose and outputs well but omits guidance on optional parameters like analysis_depth or map_to_attack, making it incomplete for an agent needing to configure a correct call.

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 7 parameters, but it only alludes to supported languages, which maps to one parameter. It does not explain content, filename, map_to_attack, analysis_depth, decode_embedded_content, or include_line_references, leaving most parameters underspecified for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Statically analyze a script' with an explicit list of supported languages. It also differentiates itself from siblings by emphasizing it does not execute content and returns a distinct set of outputs (behaviors, indicators, risk score). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies this tool is for static, non-executing analysis of scripts, but it never explicitly states when to choose it over siblings like decode_blob, extract_indicators, explain_command, or compare_scripts. There is no 'use this instead of X when...' guidance or exclusion criteria, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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