Scans a binary for AES S-boxes, SHA/MD5 constants, CRC32 tables, RC4 loops, and ChaCha schedules, flagging cryptographic implementations for SMT inversion.
Scans for AES S-Boxes, SHA/MD5 constants, CRC32 tables, RC4 loops, and ChaCha schedules for SMT inversion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binary_path | Yes | Absolute path to binary |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the detection heuristics, which is genuinely behavioral information, but never confirms the operation is read-only, doesn't say whether results are offsets, addresses, or match kinds, and gives no cost/performance expectation for a scan over a whole binary.
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 first and zero filler. The target list is dense but every item earns its place as a distinct detection category; the only mild weakness is that the multi-item enumeration reads as jargon-heavy with no structural break.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral and return-shape information, and it omits what a scan yields (offsets, addresses, match metadata) and whether scanning is static-only. Adequate to call the tool, but incomplete for interpreting results.
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 required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Absolute path to binary'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about path constraints or format, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.
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?
Specific verb 'Scans for' paired with an enumerated list of concrete targets (AES S-Boxes, SHA/MD5 constants, CRC32 tables, RC4 loops, ChaCha schedules). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling scan_byte_entropy, which measures entropy rather than matching known crypto constants.
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 trailing phrase 'for SMT inversion' implies a downstream use case, giving partial context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it never states when to prefer it over siblings like scan_byte_entropy or inspect_binary_layout, nor any preconditions such as the binary being unpacked or deobfuscated first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.