inspect_binary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: key conclusions are duplicated at the top level and inside `pe`, and the full section/import data stays in `pe`. That is real information about the response shape that the annotation set does not carry, though it does not discuss cost, rate limits, or handling of non-PE files.

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?

Three short paragraphs plus an Args block, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by use cases. The bolded emphasis on the duplicated fields is slightly redundant but earns its place by warning against unnecessary drilling.

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 no output schema, the description does enough: it names the returned top-level keys, explains the `pe` sub-object's contents and its relationship to the top level. Minor gaps remain, such as failure behavior on non-PE or missing files, but nothing blocks a correct 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 coverage is 0% and the single `path` parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It partially does by specifying that path accepts an executable or DLL file path, narrowing the expected input beyond a bare string.

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 and resource (analyze PE files, exe/dll) and enumerates the extracted artifacts: architecture, sections, exports, imports, runtime type. This clearly separates it from siblings like decompile, inspect_game and find_hook_target, which operate at different levels.

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?

Gives three concrete use cases: detecting packing, detecting whether the binary is managed (.NET), and locating exportable functions to hook. There is no explicit exclusion or pointer to an alternative (e.g., when to prefer find_hook_target instead of reading the export table), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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