List Binaries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only already-analyzed binaries are returned and what metadata accompanies each, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior on an empty project.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the parenthetical field list is compact and informative. It is slightly under-elaborated rather than padded.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return shapes, and it still enumerates the key fields. For a no-parameter list tool the only real gap is sibling differentiation and pagination/ordering behavior.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input filtering is required and offers no misleading parameter claims.

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 a specific verb and resource ('列出...所有已分析的二进制') plus the metadata fields returned (program_name, architecture, size, sha256, status). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like find_in_all_binaries or analysis_status, but an agent can identify it as a project-wide binary enumerator.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word '所有' (all binaries in the project) — there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over analysis_status or find_in_all_binaries. The '已分析' qualifier hints at scope but never names an alternative.

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