analyze_binary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares READ-ONLY, discloses the multi-minute Ghidra runtime, and enumerates the analysis steps. It stops short of stating auth requirements or failure modes, but the safety and duration profile is unusually complete.

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 the pipeline and followed by return summary, safety, routing, and runtime. It is dense but every line earns its place; only the pipeline detail is slightly verbose.

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 described, and the description still summarizes them. Combined with safety, routing, and duration disclosure, this is nearly complete for a 3-param analysis tool; only parameter documentation is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by mapping 'floss-Strings (opt)' and 'angr (opt)' to the floss and symbolic boolean toggles, but the required 'path' parameter and its expected format are never addressed.

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+resource ('Volle statische Triage eines nativen Binaries') and enumerates supported formats (ELF/PE/Mach-O/.so). The pipeline (Ghidra -> capa -> floss -> sink ranking -> angr) makes the tool's exact scope unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like decompile_function or re_capabilities.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Für EIGENE / in-scope / CTF-Binaries') and a named alternative for the excluded case ('Fremde/untrusted Samples -> sandbox_analyze_binary'). This routes the agent correctly without inference.

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