analyze_pe

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 does disclose an important scope boundary ('no disassembly, nothing shippable from the binary'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. But it says nothing about permissions, whether the target must be a running VM, or any 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then source and scope limitation. No filler, though the second paragraph packs source and limitations together without much structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, input source, and scope limits. For a single-parameter analysis tool this is nearly complete; the missing piece is any note on environment prerequisites or read-only safety.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the origin of the file (inside the VM or copied out via vm_get_file), which gives the agent some semantic grounding for what path means, but it omits format, relative vs absolute, and sandbox path conventions.

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?

States a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (PE binary), then enumerates exactly what is extracted: headers, sections, imports, exports, version resource. This is precise enough to distinguish it from siblings like dump_api_surface or iso_inspect.

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 tells the agent where the input file must come from ('extracted INSIDE the VM sandbox or copied out with vm_get_file'), which is real usage context. However, it never states when to choose this over related siblings (dump_api_surface, iso_inspect) or any preconditions beyond file origin.

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