analyze_binary

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It mentions 'static analysis', which implies read-only non-execution, and lists specific actions. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, does not mention required permissions or potential side effects, and gives no hint about the output format.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with 'Static analysis', and every word contributes meaning without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the core actions but leaves gaps such as what the output looks like, whether there are format restrictions, and any safety guarantees. It is minimally adequate.

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 schema already provides a 100% description coverage for the only parameter 'filePath'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: static analysis of a binary file, with specific operations listed (extract strings, check security via checksec, binary info). It uses specific verbs and a clear resource ('binary'), and it distinguishes itself from dynamic analysis siblings.

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 usage for static analysis of binaries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. It provides minimal guidance on when to prefer this tool over other analysis tools.

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