List Exports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers essentially nothing: no statement that this is a read-only operation, no pagination behavior, no indication of what happens with an invalid or missing binary, no return format. The presence of limit/offset in the schema hints at pagination, but the description contributes no behavioral context.

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 sentence is technically waste-free, but here brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness; it is front-loaded with nothing to load. There is no second sentence earning its place because the essential content is absent.

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 three-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition leaves the agent without enough information to call it confidently. It doesn't even clarify the required `binary` argument or the paging contract.

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 description coverage is 0% and all three parameters (`binary`, `limit`, `offset`) are undocumented. The description adds no meaning to any of them — it does not say that `binary` is a path or identifier, nor clarify the default 100/0 paging semantics.

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?

"列出导出符号" names a verb (list) and a resource (exported symbols), which is more than a tautology of the title. But it never says exported symbols of what (the required `binary` parameter), nor distinguishes it from near-identical siblings such as list_imports, list_functions, or list_strings.

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 mention of alternatives among the many list_* siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a binary must first be registered via list_binaries/analyze_binaries). The agent must infer everything from the name.

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