die_analyze_file_tool

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It does disclose that the tool performs a deep scan using specific flags (-a, -u, --verbose, -j), indicating read-only analysis and JSON output. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, mention file size limitations, or discuss failure modes. The behavioral traits are partially transparent but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is moderately concise: a clear opening sentence, a brief flags note, and a bulleted list of return items. The structure is scannable and front-loaded. The flags line might be considered minor technical detail, but it does not waste words. Overall, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it returns, and how it operates. It lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., file existence) or error handling, but these are not critical for selection. It is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema already documents the single parameter file_path with a clear description. The tool description does not add further parameter details, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra semantics are needed for a straightforward path parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('Analyze a file'), the specific tool (Detect It Easy), and mode ('deep scan mode'). It lists detailed detection categories (Packer/Compiler, Entropy, Sections, etc.) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_exif_tool or calculate_hashes_tool. The verb+resource+method is explicit and unambiguous.

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 context is implied through the detailed list of what the tool returns (packer detection, entropy, etc.), but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance. No alternative tools are mentioned. The agent can infer it's for binary structure analysis, but the description does not proactively steer selection compared to siblings.

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