classify_dotnet_protection

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 behavioral traits: it only returns category labels, never names specific obfuscators, and uses a pure-Python helper without requiring the .NET CLI binary. It also describes the output structure.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and lists categories. It includes implementation details (re-dotnet helper) that are useful for understanding dependencies. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value, and the structure with Args and Returns is clear.

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 lacks an output schema, but the description compensates by providing a detailed return format with an example. It covers parameters, behavior, and output structure. However, it does not mention error handling or edge cases.

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 input schema properties have no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section provides clear explanations: path is a .dll/.exe path, max_per_category is a cap with default 50. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type annotations.

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 'Walk' and resource '.NET assembly', and explicitly lists the category labels it returns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on classification of obfuscation patterns, not specific obfuscator names.

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 explains when to use this tool (to get category labels for canonical obfuscation patterns) and provides an alternative suggestion: for type-name listing, use parse_assembly instead. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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