ida_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' info, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly say whether it is safe, whether it requires an active IDA session, or what the return format is. It also does not disclose any potential errors or side effects. This is minimal transparency for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the main action and resource. It enumerates the specific data items concisely. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 0-parameter read-only tool, the description gives a clear summary of the returned fields, which is adequate for basic invocation. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of return format, prerequisites, or error behavior. It is a minimal viable description but leaves some context gaps (e.g., whether this is for the current binary).

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none. The list of returned fields adds some context but is not required for parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed binary info') followed by an explicit list of the data returned (path, arch, image base, entry point, size). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ida_export_idb_info, which is about exporting database info, and ida_status, which likely reports tool status. The description is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a binary must be loaded), nor does it contrast with related tools such as ida_segments, ida_functions, or ida_info. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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