omni_triage_target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by bounding scope ("fast", "without full decompilation") and implying a passive inspection, but it never states that it is read-only, what permissions or file types are required, or how large a file it handles. Competent but not thorough for an unannotated tool.

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 sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by the concrete detection list and the differentiator. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter reconnaissance tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it enumerates the categories of results an agent will get back. The only minor gap is that the response format and whether results are text or structured is left unstated.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines "path" fully; the description correctly needs to add little. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, but with one fully documented param the baseline applies and no gap is created.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Fast reconnaissance on a target file") and enumerates concrete outputs — format, architecture, entropy, compiler, packers, 25+ protector signatures. The qualifier "without full decompilation" separates it from heavier siblings like omni_deep_reverse and omni_modern_unpacker without needing their schemas.

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?

"Fast reconnaissance" and "without full decompilation" imply a first-pass triage role that precedes deeper analysis, so the usage context is inferable. However, no sibling is named, there is no explicit "use this before X" or "not for Y" rule, and no prerequisites (e.g., file must be local/readable) are stated.

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