extract_iocs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how performance is affected by scan_all_bytes, whether embedded payloads are extracted to disk, or what the output structure looks like. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that can potentially scan large binaries.

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 that states the verb, resource, and deliverable in a compact list. Every word earns its place, and the IOC type enumeration is scannable and informative without being verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must orient the agent. It does well by naming the expected IOC categories, but it omits practical context such as default scanning behavior, output format, or potential side effects. This is enough for confident tool selection but not full invocation clarity.

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%, so the parameters (binary_path, scan_all_bytes, include_context) are already documented. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('binary'), and enumerates concrete IOC types (IP addresses, URLs, domains, etc.), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_strings or find_crypto_constants, which focus on different kinds of binary analysis.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as list_strings, search_strings, and find_crypto_constants overlap in the broad space of binary analysis, but the description does not mention any when/when-not conditions or alternative tools, leaving the selection entirely to inference.

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