readelf

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 behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, requires a valid ELF file, or has any side effects. The description only states it 'displays information,' which is insufficient for full transparency.

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 concise with three sentences: first states the purpose, second explains what readelf does, and third adds context. Every sentence serves a clear function with no wasted words.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema explaining return values, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not cover error cases (e.g., non-ELF files, missing files) or clarify that 'args' is required and 'file' is optional. It provides minimal context beyond the purpose.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('args' and 'file') clearly described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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 states 'Run readelf to display ELF binary information,' clearly specifying the verb 'display' and resource 'ELF binary information.' It differentiates the tool from siblings like binwalk, file_cmd, hexdump, objdump, strings, and xxd by emphasizing its focus on ELF binaries.

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 mentions 'Specific to Linux/Unix ELF binaries,' providing context for when to use the tool. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like objdump, which also handles ELF files. Usage guidelines are implied but not explicit.

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