analyze_plt_got_table

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

No annotations provided. The description correctly implies a read-only analysis operation, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as file size limits or memory usage.

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 concise, well-structured with clear sections for args and returns, and no redundant information.

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?

With one parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: explains the binary table types analyzed and the return format. No gaps remain.

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 description clarifies that file_path must be an absolute path, adding meaning beyond the schema which only provides the name. However, schema coverage is 0% so the description compensates well.

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 it analyzes PLT/GOT tables for ELF and IAT for PE, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like disassemble_* and search_instructions by focusing on dynamic linking tables.

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 mentions the tools are relevant for GOT overwrite attacks and IAT hooking, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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