kirikiri_psb_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only analysis by saying 'bytecode/strings for RE', but it does not disclose side effects, output format, or whether the operation is safe. The negative clarification about translation JSON is helpful but not sufficient for full transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states what the tool is, which platform, what it deals with, and what it is not. Every word adds value, making it an effective one-liner without wasted text.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter. The description provides bare-bones context about purpose but omits critical details like the exact output structure, prerequisites, limitations, or any safety notes. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in a complex reverse-engineering workflow.

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 has only one parameter 'path' with no description, and the tool description does not elaborate on it at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but it fails to explain what kind of path is expected or any constraints, leaving meaning to inference from the parameter name.

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 identifies the tool as a PSB analyzer for KrKrZ, focusing on bytecode and strings for reverse engineering. It explicitly excludes translation JSON, which helps distinguish it from related tasks and sibling tools, though it lacks a full imperative sentence like 'Analyzes...'.

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?

It gives an implicit use case (reverse engineering) and an explicit exclusion ('NOT translation JSON'), which provides some guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or describe conditions that would favor another sibling like kirikiri_psb_analyze_export.

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