find_dangerous_patterns

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 the categories of results but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what 'unverified' means operationally, how errors are surfaced, or what the response shape looks like for a binary-analysis tool that reads a target path.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter query tool, though it could have spent one more clause on the behavioral or usage gap instead of remaining this terse.

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 one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, and naming the result categories partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, with no annotations at all, an agent still lacks behavioral context such as read-only status and result semantics.

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?

There is a single parameter, target_path, and the schema already documents it fully (100% coverage) as 'Path to target binary'. The description adds nothing further about it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'List' plus three specific resource categories (unverified imports, strings, mitigation signals) make the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_strings or check_security, which overlap on the same subject matter, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for manual review' hints at the context in which to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over check_security, get_strings, or find_gadget_candidates, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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