yara_pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Saying it is an alias of yara_scan does convey that behavior is inherited, but it discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, read-vs-write nature, or what the packer profiles actually detect.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness is a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and one line of prose, the definition is far too thin for a two-parameter scanning tool. An agent cannot determine what 'path' points at, what overriding rules_file does, or what results to expect.

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 are 2 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no meaning for either 'path' (file or directory?) or 'rules_file'. The alias claim only indirectly suggests they mirror yara_scan's parameters; the description does essentially nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 does name a specific sibling ('alias for yara_scan') and a distinguishing feature ('bundled packer profiles'), so an agent can roughly place it relative to yara_scan. However, it never states the actual action or resource in its own right — it defines the tool only by reference to another tool, forcing the agent to open yara_scan to learn what it does.

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?

'With the bundled packer profiles' weakly implies a use case (scanning packed binaries), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-NOT-to-use, and no guidance on choosing this over yara_scan itself. The alias framing arguably leaves the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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