list_known_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the examples clarify what is returned. However, it does not explicitly state that no binary analysis is performed (it is a static knowledge base) or mention any side effects or lack thereof, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose with enriching examples, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, output schema exists), but the description fails to explain the parameter or the output structure. While it gives enough context for when to use it, the missing parameter documentation leaves a notable gap in completeness.

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 description does not mention the 'category' parameter at all, even though the schema provides an enum with eight possible values. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have explained how to filter results, but it remains completely silent on parameters, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema enum.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List the agent's known binary patterns' and gives concrete examples (packer signatures, anti-debug checks, crypto routines). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform searches or scans on the current binary.

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 'USE WHEN' clause provides explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool ('deciding what to search for, or to understand what the agent recognizes'). It does not name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over other analysis tools.

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