survey_binary

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the complete return profile: metadata, segment layout, entry points, statistics, ranked strings/functions with classification labels, imports by category, and call graph summary. It also flags a performance-driven mode for >10k-function binaries. It stops short of stating read-only safety or any cost/limit, but the disclosure is well above average for an unannotated read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then a parameter tip, in three tight sentences. The return-content enumeration is long but each listed artifact is decision-relevant, so it earns its space; slightly dense but not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does so thoroughly (including classification categories). No annotations means the safety profile is only implied by 'Get', but for a triage/survey tool an agent has essentially everything needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema: it ties detail_level='minimal' to the concrete threshold of >10k functions. instance_id is left to the schema, which documents it adequately.

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 ('Get a compact overview of the binary in one call') and enumerates exactly what the overview contains. It explicitly separates itself from siblings list_funcs, imports, and find_regex, so an agent can place it instantly.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Use this as your FIRST tool call when starting analysis') and when-not-to-use alternatives ('Do not call list_funcs, imports, or find_regex separately for triage'), plus a size-based condition for detail_level. This is a textbook routing statement.

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