Providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful trait that engines are optional and environment-dependent, but says nothing about how detection behaves (probing cost, what happens when an engine is absent) or what the response lists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, the resource and the scope of the result. Nothing redundant and nothing that could be trimmed.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema read-only probe, the description is largely sufficient — it tells the agent what is being enumerated and that availability varies. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned provider list, which is the one thing an agent must infer.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; four is the baseline for a parameterless tool and the description introduces no parameter confusion.

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 (Detect) and resource (optional external engines: radare2/rizin, Ghidra) plus what the result conveys (operations each supports). It implicitly contrasts with hexvero_provider_run, though it never names that sibling to make the execution-vs-detection split explicit.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer this is a capability-probe to run before hexvero_provider_run, but the description never says when to call it, whether it is a prerequisite, or what to do if no engines are found.

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