r2_get_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses session lifecycle behavior (must close session_id), warns against fabricating file paths or results, and implies read-only information retrieval. However, it does not clarify whether the tool opens a session, requires an existing session, or has other side effects.

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 overly verbose and repetitive. The English 'Use when' list and the Chinese 【触发场景】 section restate the same triggers, and the opening bracket with emoji adds noise. Core information is buried in redundant marketing-style labels rather than being concise and front-loaded.

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?

Despite covering triggers and rules, the description misses a critical operational detail: how to obtain or provide the target file path. There is no path parameter in the schema, yet the description requires the user to provide an absolute path, suggesting a dependency on a prior r2_open_file call that is never explained. The 'detailed' mode is also left vague, and with no output schema, the agent has insufficient context to reliably invoke this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of semantic value by mentioning that session_id should be closed when no longer in use. It does not clarify how the target file path relates to the session_id or what 'detailed' actually changes, leaving parameter meaning mostly reliant on the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取二进制文件的详细信息' (get detailed information of a binary file), including architecture, platform, and file type. This is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like r2_analyze_file, and the trigger scenarios overlap with several other r2 tools.

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 explicit trigger scenarios: when users ask about binary reverse engineering, disassembly, vulnerability research, or radare2 command execution, this tool must be called first. It also states a key prerequisite: confirm the absolute path of the target file, and a lifecycle rule: close the session when no longer needed. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or references to alternatives.

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