get_authenticode

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only states the core function, omitting important details such as whether the operation is read-only, any permissions required, potential error states, or side effects.

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 concise sentence without unnecessary words, effectively communicating the tool's purpose. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing important contextual details, preventing a higher score.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return format, error handling, or what happens if the input is invalid. A complete description would cover these for reliable agent use.

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 has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'path'. The description does not explain what 'path' means or any constraints (e.g., file must exist, must be a PE). While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the tool description fails to add value beyond the schema.

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 returns Authenticode signature details for PE binaries, specifying the verb 'Return' and the resource 'Authenticode signature details' for a specific file type (PE binaries). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sections or parse_binary, which address different aspects of binary analysis.

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, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which it should or should not be used. Without such context, an agent may misuse it or fail to consider appropriate alternatives.

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