re_pe_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions the underlying library (pefile) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that inspects file structures.

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 a single, compact phrase with no filler words. It is front-loaded and efficient, but it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, earning a high but not perfect score.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., parsed header data, sections list, etc.) and any operational context. It does neither. The tool is simple (one param) but still lacks critical details about the result format and the exact type of input expected, making the description incomplete.

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 a single 'path' parameter with no description, and the tool description provides no additional explanation. The param name is somewhat self-explanatory in context, but with 0% schema coverage, the description should explicitly state that 'path' refers to the path of a PE file to analyze. This inference is left to the agent.

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 the resource (PE files) and the aspects covered (headers, sections, imports, exports), which distinguishes it from sibling RE tools like re_strings or re_disasm. However, it lacks a verb such as 'parse' or 'extract', making it a noun phrase rather than an explicit action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer re_pe_info over re_rizin, re_ghidra_headless, or other RE tools, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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