elf_inspect

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output shape (header, machine type, entry point, section count, segment count) and read-only behavior is implied by 'Inspect', but it says nothing about failure modes for non-ELF input, whether the path is workspace-relative, or any side effects.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb, the target, and the returned fields; no filler, no redundancy.

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 compensates well by naming the fields returned, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. It stops short of explaining behavior on malformed or non-MIPS binaries, which is the remaining gap for a file-inspection 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Path to ELF binary in workspace'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about path resolution or accepted forms, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not additive.

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?

States a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (PlayStation 2 or MIPS ELF executable) and enumerates exactly which facts are surfaced. It implicitly separates itself from sibling listers like elf_list_sections and elf_list_symbols, but never names them, so the differentiation is left for the agent to infer.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can guess this is the first-pass orientation call before elf_list_sections, elf_find_function, or mips_disassemble. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of an alternative tool.

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