survey_binary

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The description implies a read-only operation ('Get a compact overview') and lists returns, but does not explicitly state no side effects. However, context strongly suggests it is safe and non-destructive.

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 packed with useful information but is somewhat lengthy. It is well-structured with clear sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it earns its length.

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 tool's complexity (returns many data items) and presence of an output schema (so return values are covered), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage instructions, parameter guidance, and performance considerations.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: explains the detail_level parameter and advises when to use 'minimal'. Instance_id is also described as required and tied to the target IDA instance.

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 returns a compact overview of the binary, listing specific data categories (metadata, segment layout, entry points, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_funcs, imports, and find_regex by explicitly saying not to call them separately for triage.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this as your FIRST tool call when starting analysis' and 'Do not call list_funcs, imports, or find_regex separately for triage'. Provides a specific condition for using detail_level='minimal' (binaries with >10k functions).

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