get_binary_info

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

The description accurately states the action (get metadata) and output format (JSON), but with no annotations it misses behavioral details like file access requirements, potential errors, or performance implications.

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 short and uses a summary followed by Args/Returns sections. The Args section is slightly redundant given the schema, but overall efficient.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main functionality and output format. It could mention error cases or prerequisites, but is generally complete.

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 adds meaning to the sole parameter 'file_path' by specifying 'Absolute path to the binary file,' which compensates for the schema's lack of description. Could be more precise but is clear.

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 specifies a concrete verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed metadata of a binary file'), lists supported formats (PE/ELF/Mach-O) and example contents, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific analysis tasks.

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 use for overall binary metadata but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like disassemble_entrypoint or analyze_code_flow, nor any conditions to avoid it.

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