open_and_analyze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'open and automatically analyze' without detailing side effects, such as whether the file remains open, what analysis entails (e.g., running 'aaa'), or potential errors. This is minimal insight into the tool's behavior.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every word adds value, establishing the action, the resource, and the critical prerequisite rule.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which relieves the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete for a tool with a mandatory prerequisite role. It does not clarify what 'automatically analyze' means, how the analyze_level parameter impacts behavior, or whether the file remains open for subsequent operations. The agent is left missing key context for successful invocation.

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 the description does not explain either parameter. It fails to mention 'file_path' or 'analyze_level', and the 'automatically analyze' phrasing offers no clue about the analysis level default 'aaa'. The description falls far short of compensating for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Open and automatically analyze a binary file.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by establishing it as a prerequisite, noting it 'must be called before performing any decompilation, disassembly, or queries on the file.'

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'This tool must be called before performing any decompilation, disassembly, or queries on the file.' This clearly tells the agent when to use it, establishing it as the mandatory first step in the workflow.

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