bin_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it reveals only the output fields. It does not state whether the input is an on-disk file versus a live/dumped process image, whether a non-PE/ELF path errors or returns empty, or whether it is strictly read-only (implied only by the verbless metadata framing).

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the tool's domain and immediately followed by the payload of fields. No filler; it could only improve by adding one sentence of routing guidance.

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 field enumeration partially substitutes for the missing output schema, which is valuable. However, with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition still leaves open input-format expectations and error behavior for an unrecognized binary.

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?

One required parameter ('path') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The PE/ELF framing implies 'path' points at a binary file rather than a memory region or process name, which is some added meaning, but format expectations (absolute path, workspace-relative, evidence ID) are not specified.

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?

States the resource precisely (PE/ELF binary metadata) and enumerates the specific fields returned (arch, image base, entry RVA, sections, entropy, packer hints), so the agent knows this is a static metadata extractor rather than a disassembler or entropy scanner. It does not name a sibling tool to differentiate from, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives like strings_scan, entropy_map, or disasm. The agent is left to infer that this is the right first-pass inventory tool purely from the field list.

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