classify_native_protection

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it combines get_sections, get_imports_exports, packer signatures, and entropy heuristics. It also lists all possible output labels and evidence structure. This provides strong transparency, though it does not mention potential side effects or performance considerations.

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 well-structured with bullet points for return values and clear section headers. At 18 lines, it is reasonably concise while covering necessary details. A slight reduction in verbosity could improve it, but overall it is effectively organized.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides comprehensive context. It explains the underlying analyses, lists all possible return values, and describes the evidence object structure. This fully equips an agent to invoke the tool and interpret its results correctly.

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 single parameter 'path' is described as 'file to classify', adding minimal meaning beyond its name and type. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates slightly but not substantially. The parameter is straightforward and requires little additional explanation.

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: classifying a native binary's protection class. It enumerates the possible return values with examples, making the purpose highly specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_sections and get_imports_exports by combining multiple analyses into a single classification.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as calling get_sections or get_imports_exports directly. It implies this tool is for a high-level classification, but lacking explicit usage guidance minimizes its helpfulness for an AI agent deciding between tools.

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