omni_deep_reverse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the internal stages (protector detection, multi-pass unrolling, disassembly, source export), which is real behavioral content. But it says nothing about runtime cost, file-size limits, whether input files are modified, where the exported source lands, or failure modes for unsupported binaries.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the action and supported formats front-loaded before the pipeline stages. Every clause carries information an agent can use.

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 heavyweight no-annotation tool with a fully described 4-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the supported inputs adequately. The remaining gap is operational context: expected duration, size limits, and where results are written.

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 100%, so the schema already documents path, format, beautify, and aggressive fully, including defaults and the enum. The description adds no extra meaning beyond naming file extensions, which only loosely maps to the path parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Execute the full unified reverse engineering pipeline on a file') and enumerates supported input types (.exe, .dll, .lua, .js, .py, .apk, .luac) plus the stages performed. The word 'full unified' implicitly contrasts with partial siblings like omni_deobfuscate_snippet or omni_modern_unpacker, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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: 'full unified pipeline' suggests this is the heavyweight end-to-end option rather than a targeted step. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no guidance on running omni_triage_target first, and no advice to prefer omni_deobfuscate_snippet for a small snippet.

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