parse_with_format

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the two modes (precompiled module vs. on-the-fly compilation) but does not mention side effects, read-only behavior, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely concise, with a single introductory sentence followed by bullet-pointed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary text.

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 description covers the main usage scenarios (two modes) but omits details about return values, error handling, and behavior when both optional parameters are provided. It is adequate for basic usage but not comprehensive.

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. It provides clear, concise explanations for each parameter: 'path' (file to parse), 'format_module' (precompiled module), and 'ksy_path' (path to .ksy), adding meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 purpose: parsing a binary using either a precompiled module or a .ksy file. It uses a specific verb ('parse') and resource ('binary'), and the distinction from siblings like 'parse_unityfs' is clear.

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 implies when to use the tool (when parsing a binary with a specified format) but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'compile_format' or 'diff_parses'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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