analyze_elf

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, prerequisites (e.g., existence of ELF file), or potential side effects. It only mentions using readelf and returning output.

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: a single sentence explaining the tool, followed by a parameter and return description. No unnecessary 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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no required params) and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete by clarifying prerequisites or output format beyond 'ELF analysis output'.

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 single parameter 'detail' by listing four specific valid values ('headers', 'sections', 'symbols', 'size') beyond the schema's type and default. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable.

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 ELF file structure using readelf, specifying it inspects headers, sections, symbols, or size. This distinguishes it from sibling tool analyze_map, which likely deals with memory map analysis.

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 inspecting ELF file structure, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_map) or state when not to use it.

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