analyze_all

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

With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a long-running/mutating operation, that it writes results or symbols into the session, whether it can be safely repeated, how long it takes on large binaries, or whether a specific session must already exist. Only the scope of analysis is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with the scope front-loaded and no filler, though the parenthetical '(aa)' is unexplained and adds confusion rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a heavyweight whole-binary analysis with no annotations and an undocumented session parameter, the description omits runtime, side effects and session prerequisites, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0% and the sole parameter session_id is undocumented. The description says nothing about the parameter, such as whether it defaults to the current session or which session is analyzed, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: a complete analysis of the binary, covering functions, basic blocks and cross-references. This distinguishes it from the sibling analyze_function, which analyzes a single function, though the broader relationship to analysis siblings is only partially made explicit.

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 word 'complete' and the enumeration of analyzed entities imply usage as the comprehensive, up-front pass, and the contrast with analyze_function is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no note on prerequisites (e.g. requiring an active session via create_session), and no cost or duration guidance.

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