open_binary

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description's real contribution is the copy-not-execute guarantee ('input is copied, never executed or modified') and the session lifecycle behavior ('replaces the active ELF session after closing it'), neither of which is derivable from annotations. It stops short of describing analysis cost, size limits, or what state the replaced session loses.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the safety guarantee and the session-lifecycle note. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a session-creating tool with no output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers action, scope, safety, and side effects on existing state. The only gap is that it never indicates what the call yields (e.g., session identity) or that analysis may take time, which matters for a Ghidra import.

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 coverage is 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents both 'path' and 'analysis_project_id'. The description only reinforces the 'one local file' constraint on path and adds nothing about the project-id parameter; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: open one local ELF executable or shared library (.so) into an isolated Ghidra session. The 'one local ELF' scope implicitly separates it from import_artifact and inspect_native_load_image, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'in an isolated Ghidra session', which tells the agent this is the entry point for ELF analysis, and the session-replacement sentence hints at the consequence of calling it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus import_artifact / binary_session / close_binary, and no stated prerequisites.

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