triage_binary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the one-shot, multi-category analysis behavior, which is useful. But it remains silent on potential side effects (e.g., mutating analysis state), performance/cost implications of 'comprehensive' triage, or whether the analysis is read-only.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and scope, then lists the concrete output categories. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 required binary_path, the optional max_strings/max_functions limits, and the analysis_level enum are all documented elsewhere, and the description enumerates the expected output categories. However, since there is no output schema, the exact return structure/format is not described, and the description does not clarify how the returned data is organized across the many listed categories.

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 all four parameters are already explained in the input schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Perform') and clear resource scope ('binary triage'), then enumerates eight concrete output areas: file info, sections, imports, exports, strings, functions, entry points, and security features. The 'one-shot' / 'single call' phrasing differentiates it from sibling single-purpose tools like list_sections, list_imports, and list_strings.

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 phrase 'in a single call' implies this tool is for consolidated overviews rather than repeated individual list_* calls, so usage context is indirectly present. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer triage_binary over the overlapping sibling analyze_binary, nor does it mention when deeper per-function analysis would be more appropriate.

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