scan_crypto_signatures

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It explains that the tool scans and auto-discovers crypto constants, but it does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it requires an already-open r2 session, what state it changes, or how results are delivered. The closing-session rule hints at lifecycle side effects but does not explain them.

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 core description is reasonably compact and front-loaded with the scanner purpose. However, it is padded with bracket tags, repeated trigger scenarios, and mixed-language formatting that make it less crisp than it could be, and the broad "must call this" rule adds noise.

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?

For a tool with only session_id as a parameter and no output schema, the description leaves a key gap: it insists the user's absolute file path be confirmed, but no path parameter exists, implying a session must already be open without explaining that prerequisite. It also fails to say what happens after the scan and how results are surfaced.

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?

The schema already documents session_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some lifecycle context ("session_id 不再使用时必须关闭") but does not meaningfully elaborate what session_id refers to or how it relates to the required file path, which is not a parameter in the schema.

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 target: scan a binary file for cryptographic constants and magic numbers, with concrete examples (AES S-Box, RSA Keys, MD5/SHA constants). This distinguishes it from sibling disassembly/analysis tools, though it does not name those siblings explicitly and wraps the purpose in broad reverse-engineering trigger language.

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 gives a clear when-to-use hint: run this before analyzing unknown encryption functions. However, the trigger scenarios are overbroad ("must prioritize for all binary reverse engineering, disassembly, radare2, debugging questions"), and it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among the many r2 sibling tools.

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