r2_open_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses default basic analysis, the timeout risk for >10MB files, session management (must close), and a prohibition on fabricating results. It does not mention file-modification side effects or error behavior, but for an open-and-analyze tool this is largely adequate. A 4 is appropriate.

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 structured with sections but is verbose, including emojis, bilingual text, and some redundancy (e.g., repeating the 10MB hint found in the schema). The purpose is front-loaded, but extra formatting and duplication reduce clarity. It could be tightened without losing 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: when to use, what it does, parameter caveats, and session management. It doesn't specify return format or error handling, but these aren't required when no output schema exists. It is fairly complete for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description repeats the 10MB hint for auto_analyze (already in schema) and adds a rule about confirming absolute paths (also in schema). It adds minimal extra meaning, like the session-close note, but overall doesn't go beyond the schema enough to merit above baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('打开二进制文件' - open binary file) and enumerates concrete use cases (disassembly, radare2, debugging, vulnerability research, ELF/PE/SO/DEX analysis). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly directing deep analysis to r2_analyze_file or r2_run_command, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides an explicit 'Use when' list, a trigger scenario, and clear rules (confirm absolute path, don't fabricate results, close sessions). It also names alternatives for deeper analysis and warns about auto_analyze for large files. This is comprehensive guidance on when and when not to use the tool.

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