xp3_re_exe_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool scans for an encryption control block, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what output or side effects occur, or any permissions or prerequisites. The name 'inspect' hints at non-destructive behavior, but the description does not confirm it.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant filler. Every word contributes to the purpose. It is highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description must explain return values and operational context. It does not describe what the scan produces (e.g., whether it reports success, returns the control block, or outputs a report), nor how this step fits into a larger RE workflow. The mention of 'GARbro-style' gives some context but leaves critical gaps for an agent deciding to invoke the tool.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter 'path' with the description 'Path to game .exe', covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds the modifier 'official' and specifies the target as 'game EXE', which slightly enhances the schema but does not significantly add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('official game EXE') to state exactly what the tool does: look for embedded Cx 'Encryption control block'. The mention of 'GARbro-style RE assist' provides useful context that distinguishes it from sibling tools like xp3_re_xor_recover or xp3_re_tpm_inspect, which target different aspects.

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 implicitly indicates usage for reverse engineering assistance via 'GARbro-style RE assist', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. The context signal of sibling tools suggests it is one of several RE options, but the description gives no comparative guidance.

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