xp3_re_tpm_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The word 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds specific behavioral details (Cx control block + interesting strings). However, it doesn't explicitly state safety, side effects, or output format, leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence of 14 words. Every word contributes to conveying purpose and scope, with no filler or redundant 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter type. However, it omits any mention of the output format or return value, and lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which are significant gaps given the absence of annotations.

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 describes 'path' simply as 'Path to .tpm / PE'. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the path can point to a Kirikiri .tpm file or any PE executable, and that the tool will focus on Cx control block and strings, enriching the schema's semantic coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Inspect a Kirikiri .tpm (or any PE): Cx control block + interesting strings.' It uses a specific verb (Inspect), identifies the resource (.tpm/PE), and details the specific focus (Cx control block + strings), distinguishing it from siblings like re_pe_info and re_strings.

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 when to use this tool by mentioning the specific .tpm/Cx control block focus, which differentiates it from generic PE inspection or string extraction. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for alternative use cases.

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