Run provider operation

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds genuine context beyond that with 'Output is bounded and cached,' but says nothing about execution cost, which operations are slow, or how results are truncated.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action and the operation list front-loaded, no filler. The trailing 'Output is bounded and cached' is a single efficient behavioral note.

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 6-parameter dispatch tool over 10 operations with no output schema, an agent still needs to infer the per-operation parameter contract (text only for search, address for disassemble/decompile/xrefs/callers/callees) and the difference between the three provider engines. The description is adequate but leaves meaningful inference work.

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 50%; the description clarifies that 'address' is a function address or symbol used by xrefs/callers/callees and that search takes names and strings, which partially compensates. It gives no mapping of which parameters are required per operation and no mention of provider selection or timeoutMs.

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?

Names a specific verb (run) and resource (engine operation on a target) and enumerates all ten supported operations, so an agent knows exactly what surface the tool covers. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings that expose overlapping functionality such as hexvero_strings and hexvero_call_graph, which appear as first-class operations here too.

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 operation enumeration implies when each variant is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick hexvero_provider_run versus the dedicated siblings (hexvero_strings, hexvero_call_graph, hexvero_analyze) that appear to do the same things. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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