List Imports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses only that results are rendered as library!name. It does not cover read-only safety, required binary state, error behavior when a binary is unknown, or whether results are truncated by a default limit.

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 with no waste, but its terseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than disciplined economy. The format hint is front-loaded, which is good.

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 3-parameter extraction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the binary reference, pagination defaults, and preconditions. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call it confidently without trial and error.

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?

All three parameters (binary, limit, offset) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description only hints at output formatting rather than explaining parameters. Nothing says whether 'binary' is a path, hash, or ID from list_binaries, nor how limit/offset paginate.

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+resource ('列出导入符号' = list imported symbols) and adds a format hint ('库!名称' = library!name). The import/export and import/function distinctions are inferable from the name, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus list_exports, list_functions, or find_in_all_binaries, and no prerequisites such as whether the binary must be loaded or analyzed first. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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