run_capa_analysis

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

The description mentions disk caching and returning cached results, which is useful. However, the sentence 'It fully analyzes all functions until completion' is ambiguous—it likely refers to open_and_analyze, not run_capa_analysis, causing potential confusion about which tool performs the analysis. No annotations are present, so the description carries the responsibility but does not clearly separate dependency behavior from the tool's own 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 is relatively short but contains a run-on sentence with an ambiguous pronoun reference ('It'), which affects structural clarity. It could be tighter and more direct in separating the tool's role from its dependency.

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, return values need not be explained. The description covers the key prerequisite and caching behavior, but the ambiguity about which tool performs analysis and the lack of explicit parameter guidance leave some gaps. Overall, it is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with a dependency.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the 'force_reanalysis' parameter. However, the single boolean parameter's name is self-explanatory, and the mention of cached results implies a reanalysis flag is available. The description provides indirect meaning but does not explicitly connect it to the 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 tool matches capa-rules and identifies malicious capabilities using a pre-analyzed Rizin Session. This is specific and unique among siblings, which are general file analysis tools.

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?

It explicitly states 'open_and_analyze must be called first', providing a clear prerequisite and dependency. This gives strong guidance on when to use the tool.

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