Statically inspect AutoShop DLLs or PE evidence to report architecture, SHA256 hashes, and compilation exports, ensuring native compile readiness without executing or altering files.
静态读取 PE 证据/安装目录，报告架构、SHA256 与编译相关导出；不执行 DLL、不假编译。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dlls | No | 只关注这些文件名 | |
| evidence | No | PE 研究证据 JSON 路径 | |
| install_dir | No | AutoShop 安装目录（只读静态扫描） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It discloses that the tool is static, does not execute DLLs, does not fake compilation, and reports specific metrics. This is above-average transparency for a tool without annotations, though it omits details about return format or possible edge-case behavior.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes critical negative guarantees at the end. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy.
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 simple probe tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it reads, what it reports, and its non-destructive nature. It does not describe the exact return format, but given the tool's scope and the presence of a descriptive schema, this is an acceptable gap.
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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage (dlls, evidence, install_dir). The description loosely references 'PE evidence/install directory' which maps to evidence and install_dir, but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb (reads), resource (PE evidence/install directory), and specific outputs (architecture, SHA256, compile-related exports). It also explicitly excludes execution and fake compilation, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like native_compile_copy or il_patch_copy. Clear and unambiguous.
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 this is a static inspection tool and explicitly says it does not execute DLLs or fake compilation, which conveys a safe, read-only usage context. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings. Usage is clear but not fully explicit about routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.