rea_patch_pe_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: this is a read-only, non-mutating inspection. It also names what is returned, so an agent knows no changes occur. It stops short of stating failure behavior for invalid or non-PE paths.

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?

A single front-loaded clause: read-only qualifier first, then the resource, then the returned fields. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately signals the return contents and safety profile. Only minor gaps remain (error cases, path expectations).

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?

There is one parameter (file_path) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no semantics for it. The parameter is largely self-explanatory, but nothing confirms it should be a local filesystem path versus a PE-relative path.

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 (查看/read-only view) and resource (PE file overview) and enumerates the returned content (image base, section table, size, SHA-256). It implicitly separates itself from the mutation siblings (apply/restore/patch), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 '只读' qualifier implies this is the inspection step before patching, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule or pointer to a sibling such as rea_patch_sha256 for hash-only needs. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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