Binary Ninja Headless MCP

by mrphrazer

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation3/5
While the use of prefixes (e.g., session., binary., function.) helps organize tools, several pairs have nearly identical descriptions (e.g., binary.get_function_disassembly_at and disasm.function both say 'Get full disassembly for the function containing an address'), creating confusion. The high number of tools (181) also makes it harder to distinguish subtle differences.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent dot-separated naming convention with lower-case words, typically a prefix indicating the domain followed by a descriptive verb or noun (e.g., session.open, binary.functions, annotation.rename_function). No mixing of styles or irregularities.
Tool Count1/5
At 181 tools, this server drastically exceeds the typical MCP scope (3-15 tools). Even for a comprehensive binary analysis platform, this count is extreme and makes the tool set unwieldy for agents. The server would benefit from being split into multiple focused servers.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers an exhaustive range of operations for binary analysis: session management, analysis control, memory, disassembly, IL, annotations, patching, undo, tasks, types, workflows, projects, plugins, and more. There are no obvious gaps for the headless Binary Ninja use case.
Average 2.3/5 across 181 of 181 tools scored. Lowest: 1.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under GPL 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires specific permissions, or affects other data. The agent cannot assess the impact of invoking this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words), but this is under-specification rather than concise effectiveness. No sentence earns its place because the description provides virtually no actionable information. It is not appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and many siblings.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, missing output schema, zero parameter documentation, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, parameters, return value, or relationship to other annotation tools, leaving the agent with no useful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter ('session_id' or 'address'). It fails to explain what 'address' represents (e.g., a memory address, a variable name) or the role of 'session_id', leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Undefine data variable' is a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what 'undefine' means in this context. It does not differentiate from closely related siblings like 'annotation.undefine_symbol' or 'annotation.define_data_var', leaving the agent unsure of what this tool actually accomplishes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no explanation of when to use 'annotation.undefine_data_var' instead of 'annotation.undefine_symbol' or 'annotation.rename_data_var'. The description offers no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It lacks any mention of whether the tool is destructive (overwrites existing snapshots), requires a specific session state (e.g., open database), has side effects on other session data, or what the performance implications are. 'Save' implies persistence but nothing else is revealed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to convey essential meaning, making it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. It should provide at least one sentence clarifying what an auto snapshot is and its role.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the sibling tool set (database operations, undo/redo, project management), the absence of an output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the tool description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the return value, side effects, or how this fits into the broader session management workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no documentation for the single parameter 'session_id'. The description also fails to explain what 'session_id' refers to (e.g., a database session, a user session, a file path), its expected format, or how to obtain a valid value. With no additional context, the agent cannot determine what to pass.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Save auto snapshot' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'database.save_auto_snapshot'. It does not specify what an auto snapshot is, what it contains (e.g., database state, settings, user data), or how it differs from a regular snapshot or other database tools like 'database.snapshots' or 'database.create_bndb'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 100+ sibling tools including 'database.snapshots', 'database.create_bndb', and 'undo.begin', there is no indication that this is a save operation that might replace or complement those, nor are prerequisites or side-effects mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read operation ('Get') but does not explain what happens on invalid addresses, whether the operation is safe, what types of data are returned, or any side effects. This is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the single sentence is brief, it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information that an agent needs, making it ineffective. Every word should earn its place, but this sentence fails to convey the tool's purpose or usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 required params, no output schema, numerous sibling tools), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter semantics, or how this tool relates to other data-access tools. An agent would be left guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no explanation for the 'address' parameter (integer/string meaning) or 'session_id'. The user cannot infer what values are valid or how they affect the tool's behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get typed data variable at an address' uses a generic verb and resource, but 'typed data variable' is unclear and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'value.reg', 'value.stack', or 'binary.data_vars'. It lacks specificity about what constitutes a typed data variable or how the address is interpreted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'value.possible' or 'search.data'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active session) or when to avoid using it. The description offers zero decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read vs. write, side effects, permissions, return semantics). The single phrase 'IL function listing.' does nothing to reveal behavior beyond implying a listing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words), but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. It is not efficiently informative; it is merely skeletal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide any of the context needed for correct usage (e.g., output format, parameter roles, difference from sibling tools).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters (ssa, level, limit, offset, session_id, function_start). There is no explanation of what each parameter does or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'IL function listing.' is vague and nearly tautological with the name 'il.function'. It does not specify a clear verb (e.g., 'list', 'get', 'retrieve') or resource context, and fails to differentiate from many sibling tools like 'binary.get_function_il_at' or 'function.basic_blocks'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions or exclusions. The description offers zero usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description offers only 'Read integer values via BinaryReader,' which implies read-only behavior but does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or constraints. The agent cannot assess safety or potential impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and lacks key information. Brevity is not beneficial when essential context is missing, making this more underspecification than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., an open session), or how to construct parameters, leaving the agent unable to use the tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% documentation coverage across 4 parameters, and the description adds no explanation of what each parameter means (e.g., width as byte size, endian as byte order, address format, session_id purpose). The agent must guess parameter semantics, risking incorrect usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Read integer values via BinaryReader,' which identifies the action (read) and resource (integer values via BinaryReader), but it does not clarify what BinaryReader is in this context or how it differs from sibling tools like memory.read. The purpose is vague and insufficient for selecting the correct tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory.read or memory.writer_write. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent with no criteria for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, destructiveness, authorization needs, or the meaning of 'when supported'. For a patching tool, details like whether changes are reversible or what happens to the original instruction are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) but fails to convey essential information. Conciseness does not compensate for lack of clarity; the sentence is too brief to be helpful, making it under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a patch tool (modifying binary code), the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions makes this description grossly incomplete. It does not cover prerequisites, return values, or behavioral constraints, leaving an AI agent with no actionable information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (value, address, session_id). For example, 'value' is ambiguous (the value to return? a condition?), and 'address' could be an integer or string without context. The description should clarify each parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Patch instruction to skip and return value when supported' is vague. It does not clearly specify what 'skip' means (e.g., skip execution of the instruction? skip to a different address?) nor differentiate from sibling patch tools like patch.convert_to_nop or patch.always_branch which also modify control flow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description consists solely of a single vague sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any details on side effects, error states, permissions required, or return behavior. The agent cannot anticipate what happens when the section doesn't exist or operation fails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is very short (4 words), this brevity comes at the expense of essential information. It is under-specified rather than concise; a good concise description would still convey necessary semantics without sacrificing completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low parameter count, absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description should offer substantial context. It fails to provide enough information for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, inputs, or behavior, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither the schema nor the description explains the parameters. The description does not clarify whether 'name' refers to a user name or a section name, nor does it explain the role of 'session_id'. The agent has no way to determine correct values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove user section' uses a clear verb but the phrase 'user section' is ambiguous. In the context of sibling tools like 'segment.remove_user' and 'section.add_user', it fails to clarify what constitutes a user section or how it differs from other section-related operations. The purpose is minimally clear but lacks specificity needed for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'segment.remove_user' or 'section.add_user'. No prerequisites, context, or conditions for use are mentioned, so an agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description does not disclose whether this tool mutates the database, requires any permissions, has side effects (e.g., creates implicit dependencies when import_dependencies is true), or what happens if the type source is invalid. The agent has no clue about read/write behavior or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is under-specified, not concise. A single short sentence is acceptable, but it fails to convey essential information. Front-loading the verb 'Define' is not helpful without clarity on what that verb means in this context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and 100+ sibling tools with similar domain (type.parse_string, type.parse_declarations, type.import_library_type, type.rename, type.undefine_user), the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot safely or correctly invoke this tool based on available information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool has 4 parameters. The description only mentions 'type source' which loosely maps to type_source, but provides no semantics for session_id, name, or import_dependencies. The agent cannot know what valid values look like for any parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Define user type from type source' uses the vague verb 'Define' and the ambiguous noun 'type source'. The purpose is unclear: what does 'define' mean (create, update, set?)? What is a 'type source'—a string, a file, a library path? The sibling tools include type.parse_string, type.parse_declarations, type.import_library_type, and type.rename, none of which are clearly differentiated by this description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like type.parse_string or type.import_library_type. No context about prerequisites (e.g., does the session need a binary loaded?), no hints about when NOT to use it. The description is entirely silent on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Revert undo transaction' without explaining side effects, changes to session state, required permissions, or whether the action is reversible. The agent is left completely uninformed about what happens when this tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is under-specified, not concise. A single phrase is insufficient for a tool in a complex undo/redo system. Essential information is missing, so brevity here is a drawback, not a virtue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (part of an undo system with many siblings) and the absence of any supplementary information (no output schema, no parameter descriptions, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot safely or correctly use this tool based solely on the provided definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters (session_id, transaction_id) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not mention either parameter, so it adds no meaning or guidance on how to use them. The agent cannot infer what values to provide or their significance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Revert undo transaction' is vague and ambiguous. It does not clearly specify what action is performed (e.g., cancel an undo operation, redo an undone action) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like undo.undo or undo.redo. The verb 'revert' is not standard in undo/redo contexts, causing confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as having an active undo transaction, or when revert is preferred over undo.undo or undo.redo. The agent has no basis to choose this tool correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only says 'Clone workflow' with no details on side effects (e.g., whether the original workflow is modified, whether undo history is affected, or if cloning triggers analysis re-runs). The description is entirely insufficient for the agent to understand behavioral implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Although extremely short (two words), this is under-specification, not conciseness. The description fails to deliver any useful information beyond the tool name, making it essentially wasted space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, a one-phrase description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine how to invoke this tool correctly or what the expected outcome is, especially among 70+ sophisticated siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no documentation for any of the 3 parameters. The description does nothing to compensate: it mentions neither the purpose of session_id, name, nor the register boolean flag. The agent has no clue what semantics these parameters have.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: 'Clone workflow' restates the tool name without providing any additional detail about what cloning a workflow entails. It does not specify whether cloning creates a new workflow in memory, saves to a file, or duplicates within a project. No distinction from siblings like workflow.list, workflow.describe, or workflow.insert.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workflow.insert or workflow.insert_after. No context is provided about prerequisites (e.g., must have an existing workflow selected or loaded) or when cloning is preferred over other workflow manipulation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It fails to do so: it does not state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur (e.g., does modifying the machine trigger changes in the analysis? Are there irreversible actions?), or what the response looks like. The only hint is the action parameter, but without enum values or documentation, the behavior is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The tool is under-specified, not concise. While the description is short, it is insufficient for the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage). A useful description would need more detail to be effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (8 parameters, 2 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It provides none of the necessary context for an AI agent to understand what actions can be performed, what parameters are valid for each action, or what the tool's side effects are.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details. The schema shows 8 parameters (including action, enable, activity, advanced, activities, session_id, incremental, workflow_name) with no type constraints or enums. The description provides zero insight into what these parameters mean, how they relate, or valid combinations (e.g., which actions require which parameters).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Control workflow machine runtime' is too vague. It uses a generic verb 'Control' and an abstract noun 'machine runtime', failing to specify what actions are possible or what resource is being manipulated. It does not distinguish from the many sibling workflow tools like workflow.machine.status, workflow.start, workflow.stop, etc., which likely share similar context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like workflow.machine.status or workflow.describe. There are no prerequisites, context requirements, or mentions of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Rename', implying mutation, but fails to mention effects on cross-references, error handling, permissions, or reversibility. This is critically insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary detail, so conciseness does not compensate for missing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information about return values, side effects, constraints, or error scenarios, leaving the tool largely opaque.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (session_id, address, new_name). It does not explain what address formats are acceptable (integer vs string) or any naming conventions for new_name, leaving the agent without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rename data variable' states a verb and resource but does not differentiate from sibling tools like annotation.rename_function or annotation.rename_symbol. It lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'data variable' in this context, making the purpose vague for an AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when renaming a function or symbol, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic purpose without indicating whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but wastes the opportunity to convey critical information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise; every word is present but fails to earn its place due to lack of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of three parameters, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about the return format, the scope of disassembly, or how to interpret parameters, resulting in poor contextual completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters (session_id, limit, offset). The description does not explain what these parameters control (e.g., what limit or offset refer to in the context of disassembly lines).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get linear disassembly lines' names a verb and resource but is vague about what 'linear disassembly lines' means and how it differs from siblings like 'disasm.function' or 'disasm.range'. No scope or context is provided, making it unclear what the tool actually retrieves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any alternative. With many sibling tools related to disassembly and analysis, the lack of usage context forces the agent to guess or infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The single sentence 'Callers of a function.' reveals nothing about side effects, mutability, required permissions, or what happens if the function_start is invalid. It does not state whether the tool reads or writes, nor any performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words), but under-specification is not conciseness. It lacks structure and key information about inputs, output, and context. It could be expanded to several sentences without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a function callers tool (likely returning many results per function, requiring analysis state, etc.), the description is severely incomplete. There is no output schema, no mention of return format, and no details on edge cases (e.g., function with no callers, indirect calls, thunks). The tool cannot be used correctly without a much richer description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter semantics. It mentions none of the two parameters (session_id, function_start). The description does not explain what 'function_start' represents (address, offset, symbolic name, index) or how the oneOf type (integer/string) is interpreted. However, the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, raising the baseline slightly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a vague fragment ('Callers of a function.') that does not specify a verb or resource clearly. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'function.callees' which also relates to functions, and the tool name 'function.callers' is only slightly more specific. Without stating what it returns (e.g., list of callers, call count, or locations), the purpose remains unclear to an AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'function.callees' or 'xref.code_refs_to'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations (e.g., requires analysis to be complete), or exclusions. An AI agent has no way to determine appropriate context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether execution is destructive, requires specific privileges, affects state, or has side effects. The phrase 'context-valid' is ambiguous and unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded adequately but fails to earn its place because it provides almost no useful information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, 100+ siblings), this description is severely incomplete. It omits the meaning of parameters, the structure of valid commands, return values, and error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the five parameters (session_id, name, length, address, perform). The agent receives zero guidance about what each parameter does or how to construct a valid command, leaving all interpretation to the schema names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Execute a context-valid plugin command' uses vague terms ('context-valid', 'plugin command') without specifying what plugins or commands are involved. It lacks a concrete verb-resource pairing and fails to distinguish among search.text, analysis.status, and many other sibling tools that also perform actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like plugin.valid_commands, plugin_repo.plugin_action, or any of the analysis/patch tools. No context, exclusions, or recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. The one-line description does not state whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, requires network access, or what the output looks like. The parameter 'perform' is not explained, so the agent cannot know if calling it with different values has side effects. This is a critical gap for a tool that may invoke updates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (5 words), but it is not concise in a helpful way—it omits essential information. Conciseness should mean every sentence earns its place, but here the single sentence is insufficient. The description could be expanded to include purpose, parameter guidance, and side effects without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return value, whether the tool is safe to call repeatedly, or how it relates to the plugin repository workflow. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the current definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the single parameter 'perform' or its meaning. The schema provides only a type (boolean) with no description, so the agent has no way to understand what 'perform' controls (e.g., whether it triggers an actual update or just checks). The description fails to add any value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check plugin repository updates' is vague. The verb 'check' is ambiguous—it could mean querying status, fetching available updates, or performing an update. The name implies a check, but the parameter 'perform' suggests a possible action, which is not clarified. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'plugin_repo.status' or 'plugin_repo.plugin_action', which may overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The sibling tools 'plugin_repo.status' and 'plugin_repo.plugin_action' are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer the correct context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The description only states 'Create project' with no mention of side effects, error conditions, persistence behavior, or auth requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the behavioral impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words) but at the cost of any meaningful information. This is under-specification, not conciseness. A single sentence that added parameter context would be better.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and a context with many sibling project tools, the description provides no information about the purpose or usage of the tool within the broader suite. It is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the meaning or format of the two required parameters ('name', 'path'). An agent cannot infer valid inputs or constraints from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Create project' restates the tool name and title with no additional specificity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like project.create_folder or project.create_file, which also create resources within a project. This is a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., project.create_folder for sub-resources, project.open for existing projects). No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state any side effects, permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on failure. The description is essentially a tautology of the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (3 words), but this is under-specification, not efficient communication. No structure or front-loading of key information. The description fails to earn its place by being helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It neither explains the tool's purpose nor how to use the parameters. The context signals highlight high complexity, yet the description offers minimal guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., what 'align', 'semantics', 'type_name', 'entry_size' mean). Three letter description does not compensate for zero schema coverage, leaving agents guessing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Add user section." is vague. It does not specify what exactly is being added (a section in a user context?), what a "user section" means, or how it relates to the tool name. The tool name section.add_user suggests adding a user to a section, but the description reverses this ("Add user section"), creating confusion. No differentiation from sibling tools like segment.add_user or section.remove_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., segment.add_user, section.remove_user). No mention of prerequisites, workflows, or when not to use it. The description provides zero usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits: does it create a new variable, overwrite existing, require specific permissions, or have side effects? The description is completely silent on behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, which is under-specified for a tool with five parameters and no supporting schema descriptions. It lacks necessary detail, not truly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 params, 2 required, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does in the context of binary analysis, what the parameters represent, or the expected outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the five parameters (name, width, address, type_name, session_id). An agent has no idea what these parameters mean or how they affect the operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Define data variable,' which roughly restates the tool name. It identifies the verb and resource but does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'annotation.define_symbol' or 'annotation.rename_data_var.' No context about what a data variable is or how it differs from other symbols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'define_symbol' or 'rename_data_var.' No prerequisites (e.g., session must be open, address must be valid) or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. As a renaming/mutation tool, the description should note whether the rename affects global state, triggers analysis updates, or requires a specific session mode. None of these are mentioned. The description is too vague to understand side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly terse—only 3 words—which is under-specification, not conciseness. It front-loads the verb 'Rename' but contributes no useful elaboration. Every sentence should earn its place; here there is only one sentence that earns almost nothing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the domain (Binary Ninja reverse engineering tool with many annotation/manipulation siblings) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain what a 'function' means in this context, how the rename is applied, or any return value. Complete failure to meet the needs of an AI agent selecting among dozens of tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input property names and types carry all semantic weight. The description adds nothing about what 'function_start', 'new_name', or 'session_id' represent beyond their names. For example, 'function_start' could be an address or a symbol reference, but the description does not clarify. With 3 undocumented parameters, this is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rename a function.' states a clear verb ('rename') and resource ('function'), but is extremely generic. Among sibling tools like 'annotation.rename_symbol', 'annotation.rename_data_var', and 'type.rename', it fails to distinguish what kind of function (e.g., Binary Ninja function) is being renamed or in what context. The title is null, which further reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling renaming tools like 'annotation.rename_symbol' or 'type.rename'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context required, or alternative tools. The description is a bare tautology with no usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden to disclose behavioral traits like destructiveness, side effects on analysis, or required state. The description only states 'Rebase BinaryView' with no behavioral information whatsoever.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is underspecified rather than concise. It fails to include necessary information while being short. Conciseness requires efficiency without sacrificing essential details; this sacrifices everything.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a rebase operation (likely affecting analysis state, address formats, and interaction with other tools) and the absence of any annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context for safe or effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (force, address, session_id). It adds no value beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent with no guidance on parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rebase BinaryView' states a verb+resource but is extremely terse. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling loader tools like 'loader.load_settings_set' or base address tools like 'baseaddr.detect'. The purpose is clear in a minimal sense but lacks specificity to differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., after base address detection), or when rebasing is appropriate. The description is entirely absent of usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool modifies state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The term 'BinaryWriter' implies a stream-based write pattern, but no details are given about position, locking, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (6 words), which is concise but at the expense of substance. A minimally adequate description could convey both the operational context and parameter semantics in a similar length, so this does not earn extra credit for conciseness alone.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 2 enums, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of each parameter, the role of BinaryWriter vs raw memory writes, or what happens on success or failure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the abstract concept of writing integer values, failing to explain any of the five parameters (session_id, address, width, value, endian). The agent gets no help understanding the address format, integer width semantics, or endian defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Write integer values via BinaryWriter' uses a verb and resource but is vague. It does not clarify what context or system the BinaryWriter operates on, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone. Among sibling tools like memory.read, memory.write, and memory.insert, this description fails to distinguish itself from memory.write or explain its specific role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory.write or memory.reader_read. There is no mention of prerequisites, endianness considerations, or that this is for raw binary writing. The agent is left to guess the usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. The three-word description only implies a write operation ('Add'), but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing segments are modified, if analysis is re-triggered, permission requirements, or error conditions). The agent is left blind to critical behavioral consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words), but this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It sacrifices necessary detail for shortness, making it insufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It omits any context about parameter relationships, effect on the binary, return values, or error handling. An agent lacks the information needed to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds zero information about parameter meaning, valid values, or constraints. Parameters like 'start', 'length', 'readable' are named but not explained. An agent cannot infer correct usage from the name alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Add' and resource 'user segment', making the basic action clear. However, it does not distinguish between this tool and similar sibling tools like 'section.add_user' or 'segment.remove_user', leaving ambiguity about what makes a segment 'user' versus other segment types. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, what prerequisites are needed, or how it differs from alternatives such as 'section.add_user'. An agent has no basis to decide when to invoke this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. The single phrase 'Rename a type.' discloses nothing about side effects, idempotency, error conditions, permissions, or impact on references. This is insufficient for a mutation in a complex domain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words), but conciseness without informativeness is under-specification. Front-loading is not relevant. Every sentence should earn its place, and here the one sentence is insufficient for the tool's complexity. A 2 is appropriate for being too terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero annotations, no output schema, and a complex set of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. The tool requires three parameters with no explanation. The agent cannot understand the tool's role in the broader system or how to use it correctly. Completeness is essentially absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the three required parameters (session_id, old_name, new_name). No guidance on what session_id represents, naming conventions, or what happens if the old_name does not exist or the new_name conflicts. The agent gets no semantics beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rename a type.' is a minimal statement of action and resource. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity to distinguish the type of type being renamed (user-defined, library) from sibling tools like annotation.rename_function or type.define_user. It provides no scope or constraints, making it only marginally clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are numerous sibling tools for renaming different entities (annotation.rename_function, annotation.rename_symbol, annotation.rename_data_var, type.undefine_user, etc.). Without any usage context, an agent cannot discriminate which rename operation to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. The description is only 4 words long and fails to disclose anything about side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to dependent data (e.g., functions using the type). The agent cannot assess safety or impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely short (4 words), it qualifies as under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It fails to convey necessary information, wasting the opportunity to add value. A true 5 would be concise yet informative (e.g., 'Remove a previously defined user type by name').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the domain (binary analysis with many type manipulation tools), no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, this description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about return values, error conditions, or the relationship to sibling tools like 'type.define_user' or 'type_library.*'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 required parameters ('name' and 'session_id') with zero schema description coverage (0%). The description does not mention any parameters or their semantics, leaving the agent with no understanding of what 'name' refers to (e.g., type name, user name) or how to obtain 'session_id'. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Undefine a user type' is a tautology of the tool name 'type.undefine_user'. It does not specify what 'undefine' means in this context (e.g., remove a user-defined type, revert to default, or delete a type definition). It also fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'annotation.undefine_symbol' or 'annotation.undefine_data_var', which perform similar undefine operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many related sibling tools (e.g., 'type.define_user', 'type.rename'), there is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. It gives the agent no way to decide whether to invoke this tool or another undefine tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of explaining behavior. The description is a single phrase ('Summarize workflow graph') that conveys almost nothing about side effects, required permissions, return format, or processing behavior. For a tool that accepts 4 parameters including an optional 'activity' and 'sequential' flag, there is no explanation of how these affect the summary.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Three words ('Summarize workflow graph') do not provide enough information to be useful. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there is not even a complete sentence, and no information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, 47+ sibling tools including many workflow-related ones), the description is critically insufficient. The tool needs to explain what a summary includes, how parameters affect it, and how it differs from workflow.list/workflow.describe. Currently it provides almost no actionable guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema contains only parameter names and types with no descriptions. The tool description 'Summarize workflow graph' provides zero additional meaning about any of the 4 parameters (activity, sequential, session_id, workflow_name). It does not explain what 'activity' refers to, what 'sequential' controls, or how these parameters shape the summary output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Summarize workflow graph' is extremely vague. It does not specify what a workflow graph is, what the summary contains (nodes, edges, stats?), or how it differs from other workflow tools like workflow.list, workflow.describe, workflow.insert, etc. The verb is unclear (summarize how?) and the resource is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given there are many other workflow-related sibling tools (workflow.list, workflow.describe, workflow.clone, workflow.insert, etc.), the description provides no context about what distinguishes 'Summarize workflow graph' from listing, describing, or cloning workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are completely absent, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur (e.g., modifies IL state, requires specific permissions), or what happens with the callback. The phrase 'identity mapping callback' hints at a transformation that maps IL to itself, but this is not explained. With 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is severely insufficient for an agent to understand tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (6 words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. While brevity is valued, every sentence should earn its place—this description fails to provide essential information. The structure is a single vague phrase, which is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool. A truly concise description would pack more meaning into a short space, not sacrifice clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this tool has 3 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. The agent needs to know what 'IL' is, what 'translate' does, the purpose of 'identity mapping callback', and how to use the parameters. Without this, the tool is effectively unusable. The complexity is moderate (binary analysis intermediate language), but the description provides no assistance to an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines three parameters (level, session_id, function_start) but provides no descriptions, enums, or examples. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain these parameters. However, the description mentions none of them—not even that session_id identifies the analysis session or that function_start specifies starting point for translation. With a required 'function_start' parameter of mixed integer/string type, the agent needs to know whether it's an address or function name. The description adds zero value beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Translate IL with identity mapping callback' is vague. It states 'Translate IL' but does not specify what IL refers to (likely Intermediate Language in a binary analysis context) or what 'identity mapping callback' means. Among sibling tools, there are several 'il.' prefixed tools like 'il.function', 'il.instruction_by_addr', and other 'il.rewrite.*' tools, but the description fails to distinguish what this specific translation does differently. The acronym IL is undefined, and 'translation' could mean converting IL to another form or rewriting instructions, leaving the purpose ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'il.rewrite.noop_replace' or other 'il.rewrite.*' tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having an active session), context for identity mapping, or when translation is appropriate. The context signals show that 'session_id' is required, suggesting a session dependency, but this is not explained. Without usage context, an AI agent cannot determine when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or what the output is. The word 'process' may imply mutation, but 'inspect' suggests read-only, creating ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 8 words, which is too short to convey necessary information. While it is front-loaded, it lacks substance and is under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, how parameters interact, or what the return value is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions that session_id or path is required, but does not explain mode, process, or the meaning of the parameters. This is insufficient for 4 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Inspect/process transform pipeline' but does not define what a transform pipeline is or what inspecting/processing entails. It is vague and fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'analysis.status' or 'disasm.linear'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only states 'Requires session_id or path' but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other analysis or binary inspection tools. The sibling list is extensive and no context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it fails to specify that this operation modifies state (destructive), requires a previous undo operation to be effective, or what happens if no undos exist. The description essentially provides no behavioral information beyond the word 'redo', leaving the agent uninformed about side effects or preconditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short ('Perform redo.'), which is not concise but under-specified. It does not earn its place as it adds no value beyond the tool name. A single sentence that explains parameters, preconditions, or effects would be more efficient and helpful. As it stands, it could be considered 'missing' rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema, related sibling tools for undo/redo), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the return value (e.g., status), the effect on the session state, or how it relates to 'undo.undo', 'undo.revert', etc. A redo operation typically requires a prior undo and modifies history; none of this is conveyed. The agent cannot use this tool correctly based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must fully explain parameters. The only parameter is 'session_id' (required, type string), but the description gives zero information about its purpose, format, or constraints. The agent is left to infer that 'session_id' identifies the session for which to redo, but no details are provided. The description should explain that 'session_id' is the identifier of the session where the redo operation should be performed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is 'Perform redo.' which is a tautology — it restates the function implied by the name 'redo' without specifying what action is being redone or what the tool affects. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'undo.undo' or the other und/redo tools like 'undo.revert', 'undo.begin', 'undo.commit'. A better description would clarify the scope of redo (e.g., 'Redo the last undone operation in the current session') to differentiate from undo operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'undo.undo' or when not to use it. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., requirement of a prior undo commit), or mention that it only works after an undo. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine the appropriate conditions for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Perform undo.' gives no information about whether this action is destructive, whether it requires a session lock, what state changes occur, or if it is reversible. For a mutation tool that likely alters system state, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but brevity is not conciseness when it omits critical information. Under-specification leaves the agent without enough context to use the tool correctly. A concise description should pack meaning; this one packs none.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with no description, the single phrase 'Perform undo.' is inadequate. The tool operates in a complex domain with many stateful siblings (undo.commit, undo.revert, undo.redo), but the description provides no context about scope, side effects, or success criteria.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter (session_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention session_id at all, forcing the agent to guess that undo applies to a specific session. The parameter's purpose and format (e.g., UUID? session number?) are entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Perform undo.' is vague and essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what is being undone (e.g., the last session action, a specific operation) or provide any concrete resource context. Given the large sibling list, it fails to distinguish itself from related tools like undo.revert or undo.redo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like undo.revert or undo.commit. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering requirements, or conditions under which undo should be invoked. The description offers zero contextual decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It says only 'Run base-address detection' with no indication of side effects, mutability, required permissions, or what changes occur to the binary/database. This is a critical gap for a tool that likely modifies analysis state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), which is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks necessary context for a tool with multiple parameters and a technical domain. Conciseness should not come at the expense of minimal usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides virtually no context. It does not explain what base-address detection does, how to interpret results, or how this tool relates to the broader baseaddr family. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 8 parameters (session_id, analysis, alignment, arch_name, etc.) with zero description coverage in the schema itself. The tool description adds no meaning to any parameter—it does not mention parameters, their roles, or how they affect detection. The agent gets no help understanding what values to supply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Run base-address detection', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like baseaddr.reasons or baseaddr.abort beyond the action verb 'detect'. The purpose is vaguely clear but lacks specificity about what detection entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as baseaddr.reasons or baseaddr.abort. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether analysis must be complete) or context that would help an agent decide to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, scope (direct vs. transitive callees), prerequisites, or side effects. The description is a tautology that adds no new information beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words) but lacks structure and substance. It is underspecified rather than appropriately concise. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one fails to provide any meaningful guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (binary analysis, many sibling tools, no output schema, two required parameters), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the output, the parameters, or how this tool relates to the many similar tools in the sibling list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the two parameters ('session_id' and 'function_start'). The description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they should be used. The agent receives no help understanding the input beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Callees of a function' vaguely indicates the tool returns the functions called by a given function. However, it uses a noun phrase instead of a verb+resource, and it does not distinguish the tool from the sibling 'function.callers' which is the inverse operation. The purpose is clear only if the agent infers the action from the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'function.callers' or other analysis tools. The description provides no context for selection, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Store metadata by key' without revealing whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on key conflict, required permissions, or side effects. This is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential information about scope and behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide a complete functional contract. It fails to explain the scope, operation semantics, or return behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'key' but not 'session_id' or 'value', nor does it explain the expected format or constraints for 'value'. The description adds negligible value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Store metadata by key' indicates the basic action but fails to specify the scope (session) or distinguish from sibling tools like 'function.metadata_store' and 'project.metadata_store'. The required 'session_id' parameter in the schema hints at session scope, but the description omits this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as 'function.metadata_store' and 'project.metadata_store' suggest different scopes, but the description offers no differentiation or usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action, with no mention of side effects, idempotency, error behavior, required permissions, or constraints like nesting limits. This is a severe gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (three words), but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It fails to include necessary information that would justify its brevity. Every sentence should earn its place, but here essential context is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not explain the concept of a project folder, the relationship to the project, or the meaning of parent_folder_id. The sibling tools provide context, but the description itself is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter semantics. It does not mention any of the four parameters: name, project_id, description, parent_folder_id. The agent gets no help understanding what these fields mean or how they affect the operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create project folder.' essentially restates the tool name 'project.create_folder'. It clarifies the action (create) and resource (folder in a project) but provides no differentiation from sibling tools like 'project.create_file' or 'project.create'. It is minimally clear but adds little value over the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when to use this vs 'project.create_file' or how to handle prerequisites like an existing project. The description offers no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It omits whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens when the project is missing, or any side effects. The bare description carries the full burden and fails completely.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short at three words, but conciseness is not the same as underspecification. Every sentence should add value; here the single sentence is nearly redundant with the tool name. The brevity sacrifices necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description must compensate heavily. It does not. The agent is left with almost no understanding of how to use this tool among dozens of siblings. Completeness is severely lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds zero meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'key' or 'project_id' represent, their expected formats, or how they are used. The description contributes nothing beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Query project metadata.' essentially restates the tool name project.metadata_query. While it indicates a verb and resource, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like metadata.query or function.metadata_query. The purpose is vague and fails to specify the scope or what 'project metadata' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for metadata operations (e.g., metadata.query, project.metadata_store, project.metadata_remove), the description offers no context for selection, prerequisites, or usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it advances a search cursor, what happens when no more matches exist, or any other side effects. The phrase 'next' implies statefulness, but that is not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short phrase, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits critical information about parameters, state, and usage, so the brevity is a drawback rather than a strength.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely insufficient. It does not explain the return format, the meaning of 'start', the session requirement, or how this fits into the search workflow, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (session_id, start, query). The description adds no semantic meaning beyond what the parameter names alone suggest.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find next text match' states a clear action (find) on a resource (text match), but it is vague about what constitutes 'text' and how this differs from siblings like search.all_text or binary.search_text. The word 'next' is already in the name, so it adds little beyond the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain that it is a continuation of a prior search, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The one-line description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to indicate whether 'pull' is read-only, destructive, requires specific permissions, or produces side effects. The agent cannot infer if the tool modifies the archive or simply returns data, making it risky to invoke.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but at the expense of essential information. It is not front-loaded with key behavioral details, and the brevity leaves the agent underinformed. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one does not convey enough meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, or any constraints. The agent has virtually no contextual understanding to select or invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter explanations are present in the schema. The description does not mention any of the three parameters (names, session_id, type_archive_id) or their semantics. The agent has no idea what 'names' refers to or how to provide valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Pull types from a type archive' identifies the action (pull) and resource (type archive), but 'pull' is vague and does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'type_archive.get' which likely performs a similar retrieval. The verb lacks specificity, and the description does not clarify what 'pull' entails (e.g., extract, download, load).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'type_archive.get', 'type_archive.push', or 'type_archive.references'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state side effects (e.g., whether parsing modifies state or is purely functional), error conditions, or whether it requires an open session. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While only two words, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks front-loading of actionable information and provides no structure (e.g., no sentence distinguishing from siblings, no usage context). Those two words could be replaced or expanded with additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, 2 required), the absence of an output schema, and the large number of sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to inform about the return format, error behavior, or prerequisites such as an active session or specific binary analysis state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; it doesn't clarify what session_id represents (e.g., an open file handle?), what type_source expects (e.g., raw string, file path?), or how import_dependencies affects behavior. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Parse a single type string' uses a vague verb 'parse' and the generic resource 'type string'. In the context of many sibling tools (e.g., type.parse_declarations, type.define_user, type.rename, type.import_library_type), it doesn't clarify what kind of type string (e.g., C type, IL type, user-defined) or what the output is. It fails to distinguish itself from type.parse_declarations or other type-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like type.parse_declarations, type.define_user, type.import_library_type, or other tools. There are no examples, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent with no basis for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully inherits the burden of disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or destructive, whether it requires session_id to be valid, what happens if the address is invalid, or if there are rate or size limits. The concise description lacks essential behavioral context for safe tool selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (6 words), which could be considered concise, but it sacrifices clarity and usefulness. It is front-loaded only because it is so brief, but it does not earn its place because it fails to convey meaningful information. A 3 reflects minimal viability with wasted opportunity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description should explain the return format (e.g., list of addresses, count). With 3 parameters, a vague sibling landscape, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot determine the tool's correct usage or output from this minimal information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the three parameters (session_id, address, length). The description adds no information about any of them—no explanation of what session_id represents, what formats address accepts (integer vs string memory addresses), or what length controls. The agent is left to guess the role of each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Data references from an address' is too vague. It uses a generic phrase without a specific verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like xref.code_refs_from or xref.data_refs_to. The purpose is unclear—does it return all data references pointing from an address or references to that address? The name suggests 'from', but the description does not confirm this.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling cross-reference tools (e.g., xref.code_refs_from, xref.data_refs_to, xref.code_refs_to). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description gives the agent no help in choosing among these closely related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not state whether this operation is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions. There is no mention of side effects, performance implications, or what happens if the session is invalid. For a tool with zero annotations, this is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, but it under-specifies the tool's function. Conciseness requires that every sentence earns its place; here, the single sentence is too minimal to be useful. A decent description can be short, but this lacks essential details, making it an under-specification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the context of a complex environment with many sibling tools, no output schema, and only one minimally documented parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, whether results are paginated, or how errors are handled. For a tool that likely returns a list, the agent has no idea what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has only one parameter (session_id) with zero schema description coverage (0%). The description does not explain what session_id means, its format, or how to obtain it. Since the description fails to add any meaning beyond the bare property name, and the schema provides no documentation, this is inadequate. The baseline is low, and the description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List external libraries' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (external libraries). However, it does not define what an 'external library' is in this context, and among the many sibling tools like external.library_add, external.library_remove, and type_library.list, it lacks differentiation. The purpose is minimally clear but not specific enough to distinguish it from similar concepts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like type_library.list or external.library_add. There is no context about prerequisites (e.g., having a valid session) or when not to use it. The agent receives zero guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if the mapping already exists. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), but conciseness is sacrificed for completeness. It lacks structure and fails to earn its place by adding meaningful information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose beyond the name, how to use it, or what the result entails, making it inadequate for correct agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter information. The 6 parameters (including 2 required) remain completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to form correct invocations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add external location mapping' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like external.location_get and external.location_remove. However, it lacks detail on what constitutes an 'external location mapping' in this context, preventing a higher score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as external.library_add or external.location_get. The description offers no context for appropriate usage or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'assemble,' which implies a transformation, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, what happens on failure, or return format. The lack of behavioral context is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is under-specified, not concise. It omits critical details and does not earn its place. A concise description should be informative; this is merely a placeholder.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral details, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what assembling means, how to use the tool, or what the result is. Users cannot properly invoke this tool based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'instruction text' (asm) and 'selected architecture' (arch_name) but does not mention 'address' or 'session_id.' The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving two parameters completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Assemble instruction text with selected architecture,' which gives a verb and resource but is vague about what 'assemble' means (e.g., produce machine code, validate syntax). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'patch.assemble' or 'arch.disasm_bytes,' which also deal with assembly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., patch.assemble for patching, arch.disasm_bytes for disassembly). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It merely states 'List function variables' without clarifying whether the operation is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, or what side effects may occur. The behavior is implied but not transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), which initially suggests conciseness, but it sacrifices essential information. With two required parameters and a large sibling set, the description is under-specified and not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It lacks front-loading of key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool requires two required parameters, has no output schema, no annotations, and exists among dozens of similar function-related tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, parameters, return values, or usage context, leaving the agent critically underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no textual explanation for either parameter (session_id, function_start). The tool description adds nothing to explain what these parameters mean or how to use them, failing to compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List function variables' specifies a clear verb (List) and resource (function variables), but does not differentiate from closely related siblings like function.var_refs or function.var_refs_from. The purpose is vaguely stated without scope or context, making it adequate but ambiguous among similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context. The agent has no guidance on selecting this tool from the extensive sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It gives no information about side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the database, leaves the IL in a different state, or is reversible), nor does it explain what 'no-op' means in this context. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. Every sentence should add value; here, a single vague phrase does not earn its place because it omits critical context. A helpful description could add a sentence about scope or typical use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of IL rewriting, six parameters (two required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to inform the agent about return values, behavior, or required state, leaving large gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the six parameters (e.g., 'index', 'level', 'generate_ssa_form'). The agent has no guidance on what these parameters represent or how to set them, making correct invocation difficult.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Perform no-op IL expression replacement,' which provides a verb (replace) and a resource (IL expression), but it is ambiguous whether it replaces an expression with a no-op or replaces no-op expressions. It does not differentiate from related sibling tools like il.rewrite.translate_identity or il.rewrite.capabilities, which also manipulate IL.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or context that would help an agent decide to invoke it over other IL rewrite tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutating operation ('remove') but provides no details: whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires specific permissions, how the view is affected (e.g., shifting subsequent bytes), or what the return value is. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (5 words), which under-specifies the tool. While conciseness is valued, it sacrifices content. The single sentence does not front-load critical information; it is more omission than efficiency. Every word is present, but the description fails to earn its place because it adds negligible value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 required params, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to define 'view', explain parameter roles, or provide any usage context. An AI agent has virtually no actionable information to correctly invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about the parameters. It does not explain what 'session_id' represents (how to obtain it), the format of 'address' (integer vs string meaning), or the unit of 'length' (bytes? bits?). An agent cannot infer correct usage from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Remove bytes from the view.' which identifies the core action (remove) and resource (bytes from a view). However, 'view' is ambiguous and not defined, making it unclear whether this removes bytes from a temporary memory view or from the underlying binary. This is less specific than sibling tools like 'memory.read' or 'memory.write' that have clearer context. It avoids tautology but lacks precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memory.write', 'memory.insert', or 'memory.read'. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an open session, or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate. The agent receives no decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list', implying a read operation, but does not state whether it is safe, what 'context-valid' entails, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too sparse. It omits essential details and does not earn its place as it fails to provide actionable guidance. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional context. It fails to meet the minimum requirements for a useful tool definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about them. The agent cannot infer the meaning or usage of session_id, length, or address from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it lists plugin commands that are context-valid. The verb 'list' and resource 'plugin commands' are clear, but it does not specify what 'context-valid' means or how it differs from sibling tools like plugin.execute. The purpose is minimally clear but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plugin.execute or plugin_repo commands. The description does not indicate prerequisites, context requirements, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Store' implies mutation, but it does not reveal key behaviors: whether it overwrites existing keys, persistence guarantees, size limits, or required permissions. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is efficient but severely under-specified. It lacks structure such as separating usage notes, parameter details, or behavioral conditions. The brevity sacrifices clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and over 100 sibling tools, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain return values, side effects, error conditions, or how this tool fits with siblings like 'project.metadata_query'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (project_id, key, value). The tool's purpose is opaque without parameter context, and the description fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Store project metadata.' It provides a verb and resource, but does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'metadata.store' or 'project.metadata_query'. The phrase is generic and does not clarify what 'store' entails (create/update/overwrite), making it vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'metadata.store' or 'project.metadata_query'. The description offers no context about prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the tool as async, but fails to mention whether it is read-only or destructive, what the return value is (likely a task ID), or how to retrieve results. The single sentence provides minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (5 words, 1 sentence) to the point of being under-specified. It is front-loaded but fails to earn its place because it omits essential context. Conciseness is valuable only when completeness is preserved; here it is not.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an async search task, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and a large sibling group, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the lifecycle (how to start, track, or cancel the task), return value, or relationship to other search tools. The tool is effectively undocumented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for any of the three parameters ('session_id', 'query', 'limit'). The meaning, format, and typical values for these parameters are left entirely to the schema, which lacks descriptions. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start async search task.' provides a verb and resource but is vague about what exactly is searched and how it differs from synchronous alternatives like 'binary.search_text'. It adds the 'async' qualifier, which is helpful, but remains to general to clearly distinguish its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as synchronous search tools or other async tasks. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open session) or situations where an async approach is preferable. This omission is significant given the large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details: no mention of idempotency, overwrite behavior, side effects, or required permissions. The description fails to carry the burden of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but underspecified. While it is concise, it sacrifices essential information; every sentence should earn its place, but this one does not provide enough value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a rich set of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, usage constraints, or how it relates to other annotation tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter (name, address, session_id, symbol_type). The agent cannot determine valid formats or semantics, especially for the non-obvious symbol_type parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (define) and resource (symbol at address), distinguishing it from siblings like rename_symbol or undefine_symbol. However, it lacks precision on what 'define' entails (e.g., creating a new label, overriding an existing symbol).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as annotation.rename_symbol, annotation.undefine_symbol, or annotation.define_data_var. The agent cannot infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Open project' is a potentially major action (loading state, possibly affecting undo history or cached data), but the description reveals no side effects, permissions, or state changes beyond the implied 'open' action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At only two words, the description is extremely brief but not effectively concise—it sacrifices necessary detail. A concise description would front-load the purpose while adding minimal but critical context (e.g., 'Open an existing Binary Ninja project by path'). Current form is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and the potentially complex operation of opening a project (involving file I/O, state initialization, errors), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain return values, failure modes, or what resources are loaded, leaving the agent to guess or fail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one parameter (path) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not clarify what the path parameter expects (e.g., file path, URL, file system path format, required protocol). The input schema only specifies it as a required string, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Open project.' uses a clear verb+resource structure. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like project.create, project.close, and project.list, indicating the action of opening rather than creating or listing. However, it lacks detail on what 'open' entails (e.g., loading a project into the current context).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like session.open or project.create. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., the project must exist) or offer exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to inform the agent about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words) but lacks essential information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; the description is under-specified and fails to add value beyond the function name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the sibling tools and the lack of output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the list contains (names, IDs, metadata), how 'attached' is defined, or any constraints on the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter 'session_id'. It does not. The agent has no idea what session_id is or how to obtain it, leaving the tool unusable without external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List attached type archives' clearly states the action (list) and resource (type archives), and the qualifier 'attached' helps distinguish it from other type_archive tools like get or create. However, it does not explain what 'attached' means in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as type_archive.get, type_archive.references, or type_archive.list. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a session) or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits—whether the operation is read-only, mutates state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. 'Import' could be either reading or writing, but this is not clarified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It does not earn its place because it omits essential context about parameters, usage, and behavior. Terseness here is not a virtue when it sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what the import returns, potential errors, or any post-import effects. The multiplicity of sibling type tools amplifies the need for more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (name, session_id, type_library_id). The parameter names give minimal hints, but without descriptions the agent cannot know the format, source, or constraints of these values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Import type from type library,' which clearly identifies the verb (Import) and resource (type from type library). Among sibling tools like type.import_library_object, type.parse_string, etc., this is distinct enough to convey the basic purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., type.import_library_object for objects, type.parse_declarations for parsing). There are no prerequisites, use-cases, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Parse', implying a read-like operation, but does not explicitly state whether it is idempotent, safe, or if it has side effects. For a tool with no annotation safety hints, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, achieving conciseness. However, it is too terse to be informative; a balance between conciseness and completeness would be better. The front-loading of the verb is good, but the resource could be clarified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the purpose, parameters, return value, and side effects. It does none of these, leaving the agent with minimal information to decide when and how to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the four parameters (here, state, value, session_id) are documented in the schema. The description also adds no explanation of what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they relate to parsing. The property names alone are not self-explanatory in this domain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb ('Parse') and a resource ('user-informed possible value set string'), giving a basic sense of the tool's function. However, the resource is vague ('possible value set' is not defined in context) and it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like uidf.set_user_var_value or uidf.list_user_var_values, which also deal with user-defined variables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. Given the number of sibling tools, this lack of usage direction is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Insert activities before an activity' without mentioning whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires certain permissions. There is no information about side effects on existing activities or the workflow state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but not informative. It essentially restates the tool name ('insert') and adds minimal context. The information-density is too low; it does not earn its place by providing useful guidance beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools that require differentiation, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, return values, or usage context. A user would need to infer everything from the name and schema, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the four parameters ('session_id', 'activity', 'activities', 'workflow_name'). It does not explain how 'activity' and 'activities' relate, what format is expected, or the role of 'session_id' and 'workflow_name'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('insert activities before an activity') and specifies the direction ('before'), which distinguishes it from the sibling 'workflow.insert_after'. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool, which would improve clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'workflow.insert_after', 'workflow.remove', or other workflow tools. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The one-line description only states the action and does not reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, side effects, required permissions, or return format. This is a critical gap for a status tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one short sentence, which is under-specified for the tool's complexity (2 parameters, many siblings). It lacks structure and does not earn its place; it is not appropriately informative for an agent to use effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, many sibling workflow tools), the description is extremely incomplete. It provides no information about the output, return values, or how the status relates to other workflow tools. The agent receives no actionable context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention any parameters. The two parameters ('session_id', 'workflow_name') are unexplained. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to help the agent understand what values to provide or their roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get workflow machine status' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (workflow machine status), and it distinguishes from the sibling 'workflow.machine.control' which implies control vs status. However, it could be more specific about what 'status' entails, but it's not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'workflow.describe' or 'workflow.list'). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description is silent on usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden but only states it is async. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it triggers analysis on current session or a specific one), progress reporting, cancellation behavior, or result delivery mechanism, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three words is extremely concise, but borderline under-specified. There is no waste, but the brevity omits critical context. Front-loading is inherent due to short length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return behavior (does it return a task ID?), error states, or how results are consumed. Among complex siblings, this leaves agents guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with one required parameter 'session_id' described only as a string type. The description adds no meaning about session_id's purpose (e.g., target session for update) or format, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Trigger async analysis update' provides a verb and resource but is vague. It does not specify what 'analysis update' refers to or what data it processes. Among siblings like analysis.update_and_wait, analysis.status, and analysis.progress, the description fails to distinctly position this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like analysis.update_and_wait, analysis.abort, or analysis.set_hold. The description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., requires an open session), when async is preferable, or why not to use synchronous options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The brief description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 words), but it is appropriately minimal given the tool's narrow purpose. However, it could benefit from a one-sentence expansion to improve clarity without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and two unannotated parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not specify return format, error conditions, or context (e.g., whether this shows reasons for a single detection or multiple). The sibling context shows many analysis tools, but this one lacks the detail needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what session_id or base_address represent, their expected formats, or relationship. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what's in the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves base-address detection reasons, which is a specific action. However, it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes a detection reason (e.g., pattern matching, heuristics), leaving some ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings like baseaddr.detect and baseaddr.abort through name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like baseaddr.detect. The description provides no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or relationship to other base-address tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether this is a read-only operation (likely, given 'search'), the return format (e.g., addresses, byte offsets, or raw data), or the scope of the search (first match vs. all matches). The lack of any behavioral details is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, very short sentence. It is concise in terms of length, but this is because it omits essential information rather than being efficiently informative. It earns a 4 for brevity but not for completeness of content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity of the sibling tools (many search variants with different scopes) and the lack of annotations or output schema, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what this tool returns, how it differs from 'search.next_text' or 'search.all_text', or if 'limit' caps the number of results. It fails to provide a minimally useful specification.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, because none of the three parameters have a description or title in the input schema. The tool description only implies that 'query' is the text/bytes to search for and 'session_id' identifies the session. The 'limit' parameter's meaning (max results? bytes?) and format are completely undocumented. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Search raw text/bytes in a session.' This clearly indicates the verb ('Search') and the resource ('raw text/bytes in a session'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from many similar sibling tools like 'search.next_text', 'search.data', or 'search.next_data'. The scope of the search (e.g., is it the first occurrence, all occurrences, within a range?) is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other search siblings (e.g., 'search.next_text', 'search.all_text', 'search.data', 'search.next_constant'). The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must a session be open?), constraints, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The phrase 'Close tracked project' only gives the action verb without any side effects, permissions, or state changes. It does not reveal whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires confirmation, which is critical for a closure action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It earns its place by stating the primary purpose, but for a tool that performs a state-changing action, more detail is needed. The brevity results in gaps that hurt completeness, making it minimally viable but not efficient in conveying necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what happens when a project is closed (e.g., save behavior, irreversible changes), how to identify the correct project_id, or what the return value is. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (project_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema – it does not explain what project_id represents, how to obtain it, or what format it should take. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'close' and the resource 'project', making the immediate purpose obvious. It differentiates this tool from sibling project tools like 'project.create' and 'project.open' by the distinct action. However, the term 'tracked' is slightly ambiguous – it may imply only projects that are currently open/tracked, but this is not explicitly clarified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention that a project must be open first, or that closing a project might save or discard changes. The description offers no context for decision-making, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get one tracked type library' – no indication of whether it's read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The term 'tracked' is ambiguous. This is insufficient for a get operation that likely involves session context (given session_id parameter).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficient. For a tool with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, more content is needed. It earns no bonus for being short while providing insufficient information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. The agent lacks understanding of what a 'tracked' type library is, what the return value looks like, and how session_id relates to the operation. Sibling tools like type_library.list and type_archive.get suggest a broader ecosystem that isn't connected here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. session_id and type_library_id are not explained, and the agent doesn't know where to find type_library_id values (maybe from type_library.list or type_library.load).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get one tracked type library', which is a specific verb (get) and resource (type library). However, it doesn't clarify what 'tracked' means or distinguish it from siblings like type_library.create, type_library.load, type_library.list, which suggests different operations on type libraries. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes type_library.list, type_library.create, type_library.load, but the description provides no hints on when to use get vs list or load. Agent has no way to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'Load and optionally attach'. It does not reveal whether the operation is destructive, what side effects occur (e.g., changes to the database), or any authorization or session requirements beyond the parameter names.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence, 7 words). While concise, it lacks sufficient detail for a tool with three parameters, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the domain (binary analysis type libraries), the lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the tool's effect, parameter roles, or return value, leaving major gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation of the three parameters (path, session_id, add_to_view). It only mentions 'type library' without clarifying which parameter is which, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Load and optionally attach a type library' uses a specific verb and resource, giving a general idea. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'type_library.get' or 'type_library.list', and 'attach' is left undefined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Commit undo transaction' with no details on whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires specific session state, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for safe agent decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, but it lacks structure or front-loading of critical information. While brevity can be a virtue, here it sacrifices informativeness. A minimally adequate description would at least explain what committing means in context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and numerous related siblings, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, what state it requires (e.g., after undo.begin), or how it fits into the undo/redo workflow. The context is incomplete for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the two parameters (session_id, transaction_id). It does not explain their roles, formats, or constraints. The description is entirely silent on parameters, leaving the agent with no additional information beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Commit undo transaction' clearly identifies the action (commit) and resource (undo transaction). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like undo.begin, undo.undo, undo.redo, and undo.revert, which also relate to undo transactions. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical usage patterns, or scenarios where this tool should or should not be used. For example, it does not explain that commit should only be called after begin. Score reflects lack of usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Hold/release' without explaining what holding the queue entails, whether it is reversible, what side effects occur, or if permissions are required. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two words plus a noun) but at the cost of adequate information. It is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. A slightly longer description would be more appropriate for this tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role in controlling analysis queue state, the description is grossly incomplete. No output schema, no return value details, no explanation of effects on the system. The agent cannot determine the tool's full behavior or consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the two parameters (session_id, hold). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type information. An agent cannot infer the role of session_id or the interpretation of the boolean hold value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Hold/release analysis queue' clearly identifies the resource (analysis queue) and the action (hold/release). It distinguishes this tool from sibling analysis tools like analysis.update or analysis.abort, which have different purposes. However, the phrasing is minimal and could be more explicit about the dual nature of the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., when analysis is running), or when not to use it. The description lacks any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but it does not describe what happens if no comment exists (e.g., returns null, error), whether the operation is always safe, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 4 words, which is too terse. While brevity is valued, it omits critical details that could be added without significant length. The description does not earn its place because it fails to clarify the tool's purpose adequately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides almost no information about return values, error handling, or behavior for edge cases. The tool is severely under-documented for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description adds no information about the parameters (session_id, address). The agent must guess the format, allowed values, and purpose of each parameter from the schema alone, which is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get comment at address.' uses a clear verb and resource, indicating a retrieval operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like annotation.set_comment (write) and annotation.get_tags (tags vs comments). However, it lacks specificity about what kind of comment (user comment? annotation comment?) and the scope of 'address'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like annotation.get_tags, annotation.rename_function, or other annotation tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It only states the basic mutation action ('set') but omits critical behaviors: whether it overwrites existing comments, whether it's idempotent, authentication needs, or any side effects. Lack of detail hurts agent trust.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse (three words). While concise, it sacrifices essential information. Every sentence should earn its place; this single sentence fails to provide enough context for correct usage, making it under-specified rather than properly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return behavior, error conditions, or address interpretation. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without risking incorrect usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), yet the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the address type (integer or string), comment encoding, or session_id role. The agent has no semantic guidance for parameter values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Set comment at address.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like annotation.get_comment or annotation.add_tag beyond the verb difference, lacking details on scope or behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context like address formats, or scenarios where annotation.set_comment is preferred over set_tag or get_comment. The agent is left without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'List functions at an address.' It does not state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what the return format looks like, or whether it may throw errors for invalid addresses. The description is too sparse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, but it may be too concise given the lack of detail for the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the binary analysis domain and the large list of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the scope of 'at an address' (e.g., single or multiple functions), the return structure, or error conditions. The lack of output schema and parameter documentation compounds the issue.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters ('address' and 'session_id'). The tool's description does not explain the meaning of these parameters, such as what format the address should take or how to obtain a session_id. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List functions at an address' clearly states the verb (list) and the resource (functions at an address), but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'binary.get_function_at', which could be very similar. Without additional context, an agent might confuse the two.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'binary.get_function_at', 'binary.functions', or 'disasm.function'. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an open session or valid address format.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'list' (implying a read operation) but omits details like default pagination limits, ordering, error handling, or whether the session_id must correspond to an open binary. This is insufficient for a reliable tool invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two words plus a prepositional phrase), but it sacrifices essential information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness; missing parameter explanations and usage context make this under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, annotations, and any parameter descriptions, the tool definition is critically incomplete. The agent lacks information about return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, and the nature of 'segments,' making it nearly impossible to use correctly without prior domain knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. It does not mention any of the three parameters (limit, offset, session_id) or explain their roles. The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which is inadequate for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'List segments with pagination,' which clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (segments). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like binary.sections or binary.symbols, which also list parts of a binary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling list tools (e.g., binary.sections, binary.functions), the agent receives no hints about prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'parse and apply', which implies modification of the view. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks structure and buries the action in a vague phrase, making it less useful than a well-structured, informative description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and siblings like debug.parsers, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter details, or how this tool fits into the debug workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about the three parameters (debug_path, session_id, parser_name). It fails to explain their roles, formats, or constraints, adding no value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool parses debug info and applies it to the view, which is a specific action. However, it lacks detail on what 'apply' means or what type of debug info is involved, preventing a higher score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug.parsers. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. 'Remove' implies mutation but fails to explain side effects, idempotency, error behavior for non-existent mappings, or authorization requirements. The minimal description leaves significant uncertainty about the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (five words), but this comes at the cost of essential information. It lacks structure and fails to convey anything beyond the most basic intent. True conciseness would preserve clarity while being brief, whereas here brevity obscures necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a rich sibling set, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what an 'external location mapping' is, what session context is needed, or what the result of removal looks like. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the current definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no descriptions for the two parameters (session_id, source_address). The description adds no extra meaning, leaving the agent with no understanding of what these parameters represent or how to use them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Remove' and a clear resource 'external location mapping', making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'external.location_add' or 'external.library_remove', leaving ambiguity about what constitutes a location vs. a library.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a mapping should be removed vs. updated. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or related tools (e.g., external.location_add), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'insert bytes (hex) into the view,' with no disclosure of side effects, permanence, permissions, or error conditions. Critical behavioral traits like whether the view is modified in-place or requires a specific mode are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely short (4 words), it under-specifies the tool's behavior. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity; here the brevity leads to significant gaps. The description would benefit from additional context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and operates in a complex domain (binary analysis) with many sibling tools, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, prerequisites, or the concept of 'view'. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds only the word 'hex' which is already implied by the parameter name 'data_hex'. It does not explain what the 'address' parameter accepts (integer or string format), or what 'session_id' refers to. The description fails to add meaningful semantic context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action (insert bytes) and the resource (the view), but 'view' is ambiguous and does not distinguish from sibling tools like memory.write or memory.reader_write. The purpose is clear but vague, lacking specificity about what 'view' refers to in this binary analysis context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools such as memory.write or memory.reader_write. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the verb and resource, omitting details about side effects, required permissions, error handling, or whether the operation is reversible. This is critically insufficient for safe agentic use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase), which is concise but not optimally structured. It front-loads the verb and resource, yet wastes the opportunity to include essential context in such a brief space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover return values, success conditions, and error behavior. It provides none of this. The description is incomplete for a 2-parameter tool with no structural support from annotations or output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at the 'key' parameter via 'by key', but does not explain the 'session_id' parameter at all. No meaningful semantics beyond the schema are added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove metadata') and the method ('by key'), making the purpose understandable. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like function.metadata_remove and project.metadata_remove, which have similar names and purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or which sibling tools are more appropriate for specific scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Find next constant occurrence' without indicating whether the search is forward from 'start', if it modifies state, requires an open session, or what 'next' means. Critical behavior like direction, repeatability, and side effects are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, but it is under-specified. True conciseness would include enough context to be useful. For a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions, this brevity forces the agent to guess. The structure is front-loaded but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of many sibling search tools (search.next_text, search.all_constant, etc.), no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves too many gaps. The agent cannot reliably understand the input semantics, return value, or how this tool integrates with other search operations. It is not complete enough to be used correctly without prior knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the three parameters. It does not: 'start', 'constant', and 'session_id' are unexplained. While 'constant' is hinted by the tool name, the meaning of 'start' (likely an address or position) and the role of 'session_id' are entirely absent. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find next constant occurrence.' clearly states the action (find) and the resource (constant occurrence). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search.next_text and search.next_data by specifying 'constant', but could be more explicit about what a constant is in this binary analysis context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search.all_constant or search.next_data. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent receives no decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether this operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or modifies existing types. The term 'push' is vague and doesn't clarify if it inserts, appends, or overwrites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short at 5 words, which is concise but under-informative. It lacks structure and doesn't earn its place because it fails to convey necessary context about parameters or behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 required parameters, zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides virtually no information, making it impossible for an agent to use safely or correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning for all 3 parameters. However, it mentions none of them (names, session_id, type_archive_id), leaving the agent to guess their roles or constraints. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool pushes types to a type archive, but it lacks a verb that clarifies 'push' is adding or appending. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like type_archive.pull or type_archive.get, and the meaning of 'push' in this context is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like type_archive.create, type_archive.open, or type_archive.pull. There is no indication of prerequisites, e.g., that the type archive must already exist, or that session must be valid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create and optionally attach' but does not explain what 'attach' means, whether creation persists immediately, what side effects occur, or what permissions are needed. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (5 words) and lacks structure. While conciseness is valued, this is under-specification rather than efficient communication. Important details about parameters, attachment behavior, and return value are missing, making the description insufficient for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, no annotations, and a create operation, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how attachment works, or how to use the parameters effectively. Siblings like type_library.load likely have more context, making this one stand out as incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage (no schema descriptions). The description adds no parameter-level detail—it does not explain 'name', 'path', 'session_id', or 'add_to_view'. The agent cannot infer the meaning of 'optionally attach' from the parameters, leaving a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create and optionally attach a type library', which identifies the action (create) and resource (type library). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like type_library.load (load existing) and type_archive.create (different resource). However, 'optionally attach' is vague and reduces specificity slightly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like type_library.load, type_archive.create, or other type-related tools. It lacks any when-not or prerequisite information, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'describe workflow topology and settings' without indicating side effects, permissions, read-only nature, or output characteristics. Critical behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It omits essential details needed for correct tool usage. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness; here, the brevity is a deficiency rather than a strength.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'topology' or 'settings' means, what the tool returns, or how parameters interact. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining any of the four parameters (session_id, activity, immediate, workflow_name). The agent receives no semantic guidance beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'describe' and specifies the resource as 'workflow topology and settings', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'workflow.list' (list workflows) and 'workflow.graph' (graph visualization). It is not a tautology and conveys a specific purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when to avoid it. Sibling tools such as 'workflow.list' and 'workflow.machine.status' exist, but no comparative context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Remove workflow activity,' which implies a destructive action but doesn't clarify whether the removal is reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., updated graph), or required permissions. The agent lacks critical safety context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, minimal sentence. While concise, it omits any structure such as parameter hints, examples, or usage notes. It does not earn its place by providing value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error cases, prerequisites, or how this tool fits among siblings like workflow.insert or memory.remove. The agent cannot use this tool safely or effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no information about the three parameters (activity, session_id, workflow_name). The agent cannot infer what 'activity' refers to (ID, name?), the role of session_id, or when workflow_name is needed. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Remove workflow activity,' which clearly indicates the action (remove) and resource (workflow activity). The name and context further differentiate it from memory.remove. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a workflow activity and doesn't elaborate beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other workflow manipulation tools like workflow.insert or workflow.clone. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., open session, existing activity) or scenarios where removal is appropriate. The description provides no decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Abort' implies the tool stops an ongoing analysis, but it doesn't specify side effects (e.g., whether it's irreversible, if partial results are lost, or if it requires specific permissions). The description does not mention any error states or success conditions, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two words, but this is under-specification rather than efficient communication. It earns credit for being front-loaded and direct, but it lacks necessary context to be useful. A balance between conciseness and informativeness is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description should be able to fully describe its purpose and usage. However, it falls short by not explaining what session_id represents, error states, or behavioral traits. The sibling tools hint at different workflow stages, but the description fails to provide adequate context for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no additional meaning for the sole parameter 'session_id'. There are only 1 required parameter, so the burden is low, but the description should explain what session_id refers to (e.g., 'the session identifier of the analysis to abort'). Without this, an agent must infer from the parameter name only, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Abort analysis' clearly indicates the tool's verb ('Abort') and resource ('analysis'). This is a minimal but sufficient description for a tool that stops an analysis. It doesn't highlight any nuances, but it is not a tautology and is adequate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'analysis.update_and_wait' or 'analysis.set_hold' suggest related operations, but there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a session must be open, analysis must be running) or when this is appropriate versus using 'task.cancel'. Lack of context leaves the agent to guess usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description should inform about behavioral aspects like blocking/non-blocking behavior, whether it mutates state, or if it requires specific permissions. The description is too brief and provides none of this context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at five words, which is appropriate for a simple tool. It is front-loaded with the action, but could include more detail without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should cover expected output (e.g., progress percentage, status fields) and prerequisites (e.g., session must exist). The current description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only one parameter ('session_id') with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what 'session_id' represents (e.g., identifier of an analysis session) or how to obtain it, failing to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get analysis progress snapshot' states a clear verb 'Get' and resource 'analysis progress snapshot', providing a basic understanding of its purpose. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like 'analysis.status', which likely has a similar function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analysis.status' or 'analysis.update'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., session must be active) or when it is appropriate to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get', but explicitly does not state that it is read-only, idempotent, or non-destructive. No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the minimal verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (3 words) and front-loaded, but it is overly simplistic. While every word earns its place, the brevity underutilizes the available space for providing context. It would benefit from additional crucial details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's single required parameter, absence of output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the returned status looks like, possible values, side effects, or how it relates to other 'analysis.*' tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter 'session_id' with 0% description coverage. The description 'Get analysis status' adds no meaning about this parameter—what it represents, required format, or example values. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get analysis status' clearly states the verb and resource, making the tool's immediate purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like 'analysis.progress' or 'analysis.update', which might also relate to status checking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analysis.progress' or 'analysis.update_and_wait'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'wait for completion' without explaining side effects, error conditions, or whether the tool blocks indefinitely. Crucially, it does not clarify what happens if the analysis is already running or if the session is invalid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices essential details, making it under-specified. It could be restructured to include key usage hints without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide thorough context. It fails to specify what the tool returns (e.g., status object, nothing), how it behaves on error, and what prerequisites are needed (e.g., session must have an active analysis update). The agent cannot safely invoke this tool based solely on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero information about the sole required parameter 'session_id'. The agent is left guessing about its purpose, format, or where to obtain it. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: run an analysis update and wait for completion. It conveys the core function of blocking until the update finishes, distinguishing it from sibling 'analysis.update' which likely just initiates. However, it does not elaborate on what 'wait' means in terms of return behavior or potential timeouts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools like 'analysis.update', 'analysis.status', and 'analysis.abort' exist but the description provides no comparative context, such as 'use this if you need to block until the update finishes, otherwise use analysis.update to start it asynchronously'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action but does not reveal key behaviors such as whether it overwrites existing tags, if it is idempotent, or if there are side effects like requiring write permissions. Critical behavioral traits like mutability and data persistence are not mentioned, leaving the agent uncertain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short at 6 words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it lacks sufficient detail to meet the tool's complexity (5 params, 4 required), so it under-delivers. Conciseness is good, but the brevity here is more under-specification than clarity. The score reflects that every word is used, but more are needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and a rich set of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values (if any), error conditions, or how tags interact with other annotation tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly without external documentation. The context signals confirm a high parameter count with zero schema coverage, making the description inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, meaning no parameter has documentation. The description only mentions 'address' implicitly but does not explain the meaning of 'tag_type', 'data', 'icon', or 'session_id'. Without any parameter descriptions in the schema, the description fails to provide the needed meanings, leaving the agent to guess the role of each field.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add user data tag at address' clearly indicates the tool adds a tag, specifying the verb 'Add', the resource 'user data tag', and the location 'at address'. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'annotation.rename_function' or 'annotation.set_comment', which also modify annotations. The description is concise but lacks distinction within the annotation sibling group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of how 'annotation.get_tags' or 'annotation.rename_function' relate. No prerequisites or conditions are stated, such as whether the user must have a session or if the address must exist. The context signals do not compensate for this lack of guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the core mutation (rename) but discloses no behavioral details: whether the rename is reversible, what happens if the symbol does not exist, if name validation occurs, or if there are side effects on cross-references. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, a single sentence. While it communicates the core purpose without fluff, it is arguably too brief given the lack of additional context in the schema or annotations. Still, it earns its place by stating the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 required parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and a large sibling group of similar tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It omits return values, error conditions, relationship to other rename tools, and any usage hints. The tool cannot be correctly invoked based on this definition alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no value beyond the parameter names. It does not explain the allowed format for 'new_name', the expected type for 'address' (integer vs string), or any constraints. The parameters remain entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (rename) and resource (symbol at address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like annotation.rename_function or annotation.rename_data_var, which target specific symbol types. However, it does not explicitly clarify that this tool handles any symbol not covered by those specialized siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include specific rename tools for functions and data variables, but the description gives no indication of when this general rename is appropriate or what prerequisites exist (e.g., symbol must already exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, destructive actions, read-only nature, return value format, error conditions, or performance aspects. For a tool that processes raw bytes, information about output structure or potential failures would be valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 words), which is efficient but underspecified. There is no wasted text, but for a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, it leaves out too much critical information. A bit more detail could be added without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or the relationship to session state. Sibling tools cover many disassembly variations, making additional context essential for proper selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the JSON schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'selected architecture' which hints at the arch_name parameter, but does not explain address (integer or string format), data_hex (expected hex format), or session_id. Only 2 of 4 parameters are partially addressed, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Disassemble bytes with selected architecture,' which identifies the action (disassemble) and resource (bytes). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like disasm.linear, disasm.function, disasm.range, or arch.assemble which could also involve disassembly. The phrase 'with selected architecture' hints at the arch_name parameter, but it's still somewhat vague without specifying that this tool takes raw hex bytes as input.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like disasm.linear or disasm.function. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that an active session is required) or context. The sibling list includes many disassembly-related tools, and this description offers no comparison or use-case advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List functions with pagination', omitting key details such as whether results are sorted, the default pagination behavior, error handling, or the format of the returned data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase), which is concise but lacks substance. It earns a baseline 'adequate' score because it is not verbose, but it does not provide enough value for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (functions in a binary analysis context), no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return structure, pagination details, or how it relates to other function-listing tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters (limit, offset, session_id) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'pagination' but does not explain how limit/offset work or what session_id represents. The schema alone is insufficient, and the description adds negligible meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'List functions with pagination', clearly specifying the action (List) and resource (functions). It is specific enough to convey the core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like binary.functions_at or binary.get_function_disassembly_at.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., binary.functions_at, binary.symbols, or search functions). The description offers no context about prerequisites, scope, or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'get full disassembly' – a read action – but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, require no side effects, or describe what 'full' entails (e.g., includes instructions, operands, comments?). There is no mention of performance implications, error conditions, or whether it requires a session in a specific state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (9 words) and front-loaded with the key action. However, it underspecifies the tool's purpose and behavior, forcing the agent to infer many details. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices necessary clarity. An appropriate length would include parameter hints or context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the Binary Ninja ecosystem (40+ sibling tools), the lack of output schema, and zero parameter documentation, this description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain what 'full disassembly' returns (instructions, bytes, addresses?), how the address is resolved to a function, or how to handle results. The agent has insufficient information to reliably use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the JSON schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters (session_id, address). The tool description adds zero information about these parameters. It does not explain the format of address (integer vs string), the role of session_id, or any constraints. This leaves the agent completely reliant on conventions from sibling tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'get full disassembly' (specific verb and resource) and clarifies the scope as 'function containing an address.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like binary.get_function_at (which returns a function object) or disasm.function (which may focus on linear disassembly). However, it does not name specific sibling tools for contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as disasm.function, disasm.range, or binary.basic_blocks_at. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requires analyzed binary) or context where this tool is preferred. The description only states the action without any usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list discovered strings with pagination', which is a read operation, but does not mention if it requires a session, whether it is idempotent, how strings are discovered (e.g., does it trigger analysis?), or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words) and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations. While no word is wasted, it fails to pay rent by not adding value beyond the tool name and parameter names. The conciseness lowers usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, how strings are ordered, whether pagination is cursor- or offset-based, or the relationship between session and strings. The agent cannot reliably use this tool without external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions pagination (implying limit and offset) but does not name the parameters or explain what 'session_id' is used for (e.g., to select the session/binary). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to guess the role of 'session_id' and whether limit/offset are standard or have hidden constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List discovered strings with pagination' clearly states it lists strings, but does not specify which binary or context the strings belong to. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'binary.summary' or 'binary.sections', but there is no mention of what entity the strings are discovered from (e.g., a loaded binary). The purpose is adequate but ambiguous about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search.data', 'search.next_text', or 'binary.search_text'. The description implies usage for paginating through discovered strings, but there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a session must be open, analysis must be complete) or when not to use it. The agent has no help selecting this over the many string-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lacks any mention of side effects (should be read-only), possible error states (e.g., invalid session_id), performance implications of pagination, or what the output format looks like (list of objects?). The description is too brief to be transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short at 4 words, which is efficient but comes at the cost of completeness. Not front-loaded with enough information to be useful. A slightly longer description would earn a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, operating in a rich sibling context (symbols-related tools like annotation.rename_symbol, binary.functions). The description is far too minimal to let an agent understand its prerequisites, behavior, or return format. It needs at minimum: 'List symbol names and addresses from the binary associated with session_id, with optional pagination via limit (max N) and offset.'
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter roles. It does not mention that session_id is required to identify which binary's symbols to list, nor does it explain limit/offset mechanics (e.g., default values, maximum, or how pagination behaves). The description adds no value beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List symbols with pagination' uses a clear verb ('list') and resource ('symbols'), and adds the scope ('with pagination') hinting at the limit/offset parameters. However, it does not clarify what kind of symbols (user-defined vs. all) or whether it's for a specific binary, making it only minimally distinguishable from tools like binary.sections or binary.strings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided—no when to use, when not to use, prerequisites (e.g., requires an open binary session), or alternatives among the many sibling tools like binary.functions or search.text. The pagination hint is implied by the parameters but not explicitly stated as a recommendation for large results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states that Python code is evaluated. It does not mention potential side effects, security implications, or whether this modifies state. This is a significant gap for a code execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high-risk nature of arbitrary Python evaluation, the complete absence of safety context, return value information, or usage scenarios makes this description severely inadequate. It needs to explain what bn, sessions, and bv are, and what side effects evaluation may have.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the 'code' or 'session_id' parameters. The names are ambiguous, and the description focuses on context variables rather than the input parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool evaluates Python code and mentions the key context objects (bn, sessions, bv). It is specific enough to understand the core action but does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like binja.call or binja.info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description is purely functional and provides no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing .bndb files), whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the session is currently in use. The description is too sparse to give the agent confidence about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), which is concise but at the expense of clarity and completeness. It front-loads the action, but it sacrifices critical details that could be added in a few more words. A sentence like 'Create a .bndb database file from the given session_id, saved to the specified path' would be equally concise and more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what .bndb is, whether the path is a local file path, or what the return value indicates. The agent is left with substantial ambiguity about how to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither the schema nor the description explains the parameters. The description says 'Create .bndb from session' but does not clarify that 'session_id' is likely the identifier of an open session and 'path' is the file output path. Without any param documentation, the agent must guess or infer from names, which is unreliable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create .bndb from session' provides a clear verb-noun-object structure: it creates a .bndb file from a session. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'database.save_auto_snapshot' or 'database.info', which also relate to database operations. The brevity leaves ambiguity whether 'session' refers to an open session ID or a session file, and it lacks detail on what a .bndb file is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No context is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a session must be open), nor when to use 'database.save_auto_snapshot' or 'binary.save' instead. The sibling tool list includes many database and save-related tools, but the description gives no guidance for selecting among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose what the status entails, whether it is safe, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. The behavioral transparency is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief to be useful; it sacrifices critical detail for brevity. While not verbose, it does not earn its place by providing enough information to guide the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a single under-described parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'status' includes, the return format, or how session_id relates to other tools. The agent likely needs additional context to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single required parameter 'session_id' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what session_id is, how to obtain it, or its format. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get database status for session' clearly specifies a verb and resource with a scope. It distinguishes from sibling database tools like database.snapshots or database.read_global by focusing on 'status' rather than snapshots or global data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar retrieval tools, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling tools, the lack of usage direction is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('List') and resource ('database snapshots'), implying a read-only operation but not explicitly stating it. It does not disclose pagination behavior, required authentication, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for the complexity of the tool. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, but fails to provide necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of three parameters (including a required one), no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination, session requirements, or the scope of snapshots listed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description adds no information about the three parameters (limit, offset, session_id). The agent must infer their meaning solely from parameter names, which is insufficient for a tool with pagination and a required session identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List database snapshots' uses a clear verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes from sibling tools like database.create_bndb, database.save_auto_snapshot, and database.info, which have different actions. However, it leaves minor ambiguity about whether it lists snapshots for the current database or all databases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this over other database-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'write,' implying mutation, but does not mention whether overwrites occur, idempotency, permissions needed, or side effects. The minimal description provides insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the verb. However, it is under-specified to the point of being insufficient. Every word is arguably necessary, but the description lacks essential details that would merit more sentences. It is concise at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (write a key-value pair), the description is not complete. There is no output schema, no explanation of return values, error handling, or behavior on key exists. The agent would lack context for using this tool effectively, especially compared to related tools like 'database.read_global' or 'database.create_bndb'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%—the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema's structure. It does not explain what 'key,' 'value,' or 'session_id' represent, their formats, constraints, or roles. This is a critical omission for a tool with three undocumented required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Write database global string key.' It clearly indicates the action (write) and the target (global string key in the database). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'database.read_global' tool, though the verb itself differentiates write from read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'database.read_global' or other write tools. No context is provided for appropriate usage scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says it lists parsers—no mention of whether it's read-only, requires a session, or has side effects. The lack of traits like 'read-only' or 'session-dependent' leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence—no filler or unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though it could benefit from adding a brief clarification after the sentence, but that's optional. No structural issues.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), but the description omits critical context like session dependency and return format. With no annotations or output schema, the description should cover these basics to be complete for an agent; it falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter ('session_id'), the description fails to explain what session_id represents (e.g., a hex string from session.open). No additional meaning is added beyond the schema's type definition, leaving the parameter's format and purpose unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it lists 'debug info parsers valid for this view', providing a clear verb ('List') and resource ('debug info parsers'). However, it doesn't specify what 'this view' refers to—likely a session context from a sibling tool like session.open—and with siblings like 'debug.parse_and_apply', it's unclear if this lists available parsers for that action. The purpose is adequate but lacks precision to distinguish from related sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'debug.parse_and_apply' or when a session must be active. The sibling set suggests many tools depend on session state, but the description omits this prerequisite, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description merely states the action without disclosing whether the operation is destructive (e.g., overwriting existing library with same name), requires network access, modifies persistent state, or is reversible. For a creation/mutation tool with no annotations, the description is severely lacking in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words), which initially suggests conciseness. However, it is under-specified to the point of being almost tautological—'Add external library' could be inferred from the tool name. While there is no wasted text, the description fails to earn its place because it does not supply information that the agent couldn't already guess.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large sibling set with many library-related tools, the complexity of this operation is high, but the description provides almost no completeness. There is no output schema, so the return value unspecified. The agent has no guidance on required parameters (beyond the schema's required list), effects on state, or interaction with sessions. A tool with 3 parameters (especially the opaque 'auto' boolean) and zero schema descriptions demands far more detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no human-readable descriptions for any of the 3 parameters. The tool description mentions no parameters at all, so it adds zero meaning beyond what is in the raw schema (parameter names and types only). The agent has no idea what 'auto' means, how 'session_id' is used, or what format is expected for 'name'. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Add external library.' This is a clear verb+resource pair indicating a creation operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'external.library_remove' or 'external.library_list' beyond the action verb, and it does not specify what an 'external library' is in this context. The purpose is minimally clear but lacks specificity about the scope or type of library.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'type_library.create' or 'type_archive.create', which sound conceptually similar. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether a session must be open) or hints that the tool is specifically for external libraries (e.g., from a third party) versus user-defined type libraries. The usage context is left entirely to the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Remove external library,' implying a destructive action, but provides no details about side effects (e.g., cascading removals), authorization needs, irreversibility, or what state the session must be in. This is minimal disclosure beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one short sentence, but this conciseness comes at the cost of informativeness. It repeats the tool name almost verbatim. While there is no wasted text, the sentence does not earn its place by adding value, making it merely adequate in structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools in the external.* family. The description lacks details about return behavior, error conditions, or prerequisites. Given the context, it is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without guessing or external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%—neither parameter has a description in the schema. The tool's description adds no information about what 'name' or 'session_id' represent or how they should be used. This is a complete failure to augment the schema, leaving the agent without necessary parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove external library' clearly states the verb (remove) and the resource (external library). It is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like external.library_add or external.library_list beyond the name itself, which prevents a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool instead of others, what prerequisites exist (e.g., the library must already exist), or any context about the operation's effect. The agent receives no help in deciding when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., required permissions, effect on state, return format) are disclosed. Minimal value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, which is concise but far too brief for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations. It does not earn its place by providing sufficient information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is still inadequate. It fails to explain what an 'external location mapping' is, how the parameters relate, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the meaning or expected values of 'session_id' or 'source_address'. The agent receives no guidance on these required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Get' and resource 'external location mapping' clearly indicate a retrieval operation. The sibling tools (external.location_add, external.location_remove) are distinct enough by name, though the description does not explicitly differentiate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as external.location_add or external.location_remove. No prerequisites or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., does the key need to exist?), side effects (e.g., is the operation reversible?), or required permissions. The description only states the basic action, missing important behavioral details for a delete-like operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the action clearly. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing important details, but that is accounted for in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify return value, error conditions, or behavior for non-existent keys. For a mutation tool in a binary analysis context with many siblings, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the three parameters (key, session_id, function_start) beyond their names. The description adds no meaning to what the schema provides, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'remove' and the resource 'function metadata by key', which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'metadata.remove' or 'project.metadata_remove', which perform similar operations on different scopes. The purpose is adequately stated but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'metadata.remove' or 'project.metadata_remove'. No context about prerequisites or whether the metadata must exist before removal is provided. The usage context is implied by the function scope, but no explicit guidelines are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but fails to mention whether it requires completed analysis, has side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. The lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of four words, which is under-specification rather than concise. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the description is too sparse to be helpful. It wastes the opportunity to convey essential information about return format or parameter usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (5 parameters, SSA analysis context), the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns (definition site? list of uses? actual values?), how versions work, or what level options mean. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description provides absolutely no explanation of the five parameters (level, version, session_id, variable_name, function_start). An agent has no guidance on what these mean, how they relate to the SSA variable concept, or how to construct valid inputs. This is completely inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get SSA variable definition and uses' clearly indicates the tool retrieves the definition and all uses of an SSA variable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like function.var_refs (non-SSA) and function.ssa_memory_def_use (memory-related) through the specific 'SSA variable' wording. However, it could be more explicit about what exactly 'definition and uses' entails (e.g., location and data flow).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as function.var_refs or function.ssa_memory_def_use. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when this is the appropriate choice. The usage must be inferred solely from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether results include cross-references to other functions, whether the tool depends on prior analysis (e.g., MLIL/HLIL must be generated), or if there are side effects (e.g., triggering analysis). It only states the basic action, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action. However, it may be too brief given the complexity of the tool and the number of required parameters, sacrificing detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are 4 parameters (3 required), no output schema, no annotations, and a complex domain (variable references in IL analysis), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the relationship between variables and functions, the meaning of results (e.g., addresses vs. IL indices), or any constraints. A more complete description would cover these aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter-specific information. The parameters 'session_id,' 'function_start,' 'variable_name,' and 'level' are not explained or contextualized beyond the schema. For example, 'level' restricts to MLIL/HLIL but the description offers no insight into how the choice affects output. Baseline would be 3 if coverage were adequate; here, the gap lowers the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List variable references in MLIL/HLIL,' which clearly specifies the verb (list), resource (variable references), and scope (MLIL/HLIL). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'function.var_refs_from,' which is likely similar (listing references from a variable). The minimal description is clear but lacks distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, particularly 'function.var_refs_from' or other reference-listing tools like 'xref.code_refs_to.' The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a specific function analysis mode (MLIL or HLIL already active), nor does it advise on alternatives. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what happens if the address is invalid, or how the indices are returned (single vs. multiple). The description is too terse to adequately disclose behavior beyond the basic mapping action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (5 words), which is concise but at the cost of completeness. It lacks critical context and is not front-loaded with actionable information beyond the most basic purpose. It is acceptable in brevity but insufficient in substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 3 required, with an enum for IL level) and the absence of an output schema, the description is significantly incomplete. It does not cover how parameters like 'session_id' and 'function_start' are used, what the output format is, or how edge cases (e.g., invalid address) are handled. The sibling tools list is extensive, and this tool's context within the 'il.*' family is not clarified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings. However, it only mentions 'address' implicitly through the tool's purpose, while 'session_id', 'function_start', 'ssa', and 'level' are completely unexplained. For example, 'level' is an enum with three values (llil, mlil, hlil) but the description does not clarify how these affect the mapping. The schema provides no hints either, leaving parameters semantically opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Map address to IL index/indices' is a clear verb+resource pair, indicating the tool converts an address to one or more IL indices. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'il.index_to_address' or 'il.function', which could perform related operations. The lack of distinction leaves some ambiguity about its exact role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'il.index_to_address', 'il.function', or 'binary.get_function_il_at'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session or a specific IL level) or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the mapping operation, omitting important details such as whether the operation is read-only, what happens with invalid indices, whether it requires a valid session, or any side effects. The minimal description fails to meet the transparency burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 4 words, which is front-loaded but lacks essential structuring. While brevity is good, the omission of critical details outweighs the benefit of conciseness. It is not well-structured to guide an agent through selection and invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose in context, parameter meanings, constraints, or expected output. The description provides virtually no information beyond the tool's name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions in the schema), and the tool description does not mention any of the 5 parameters (session_id, function_start, index, ssa, level). The agent must infer semantics from parameter names and types alone, which is insufficient for correct usage. The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Map IL index to source address' clearly states the core operation: converting an IL index to a source address. It distinguishes from the sibling 'il.address_to_index' which does the reverse. However, it does not explain what 'IL index' or 'source address' means in the context of Binary Ninja, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'il.address_to_index' or other IL-related tools. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., open session, valid function start), nor does it specify when not to use it. This forces the agent to rely solely on the parameter schema without strategic context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, what happens if settings are not found, or any side effects. The brevity leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It does not waste words, but the brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool's context (within a Binary Ninja plugin with many sibling tools) and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, the relationship between parameters, or the meaning of 'loader settings' in this environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. It provides no explanation of what 'session_id' or 'type_name' represent, their expected formats, or valid values. The schema lists them as simple strings with no additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get loader settings values' which clearly indicates the tool retrieves loader settings. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like loader.load_settings_types or loader.load_settings_set, leaving ambiguity about what specific settings or values are returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as loader.load_settings_types or loader.load_settings_set. The description lacks context about prerequisites or usage scenarios, making it hard for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states 'Query metadata by key.' It fails to explain whether the operation is read-only (likely, but not stated), what happens on missing keys, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a metadata access tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence at 24 characters, making it easy to scan. It earns a 4 because it is well-structured for rapid parsing, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the binary analysis domain, the tool name 'metadata.query' is ambiguous among multiple metadata tools. With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. The tool likely returns metadata values, but that is not stated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It names the 'key' concept but does not explain what values are valid for the key parameter, the format of session_id, or the meaning of the return value. This leaves the agent with only the schema property names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool queries metadata by key, which is a clear verb-resource pair. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like metadata.store, metadata.remove, function.metadata_query, and project.metadata_query, leaving ambiguity about which metadata namespace is being accessed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as function.metadata_query or project.metadata_query. The description does not clarify whether this operates on binary-level, function-level, or project-level metadata, making selection difficult.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies instruction bytes, but does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting, alignment, reverting), permission requirements, or undo capabilities. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections, examples) and is too brief to convey necessary details. It is not an example of effective conciseness but rather under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that patches binary instructions (a delicate operation) with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return value, error conditions, address format, and any behavioral context. The description barely meets the minimum to indicate the tool's function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the three parameters. 'asm', 'address', and 'session_id' are not explained at all. The agent must infer meaning solely from the parameter names, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('assemble and patch') and resource ('instruction bytes at address'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling patch tools (which are more specific operations) and from 'arch.assemble' (which assembles without patching). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other patch tools or arch.assemble. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned. The description lacks usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not state whether the patch is reversible, if it requires specific permissions or session state, what happens on unsupported instructions, or what the tool returns. A mutation tool with zero annotation coverage needs much more detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 words), which is appropriate for a simple concept, but it is under-specified. It lacks front-loaded critical details like what 'supported' means. It could be more concise if it were more informative without adding length; currently it wastes the opportunity to provide clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (mutation tool, no output schema, two parameters with 0% schema description coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions (e.g., unsupported instruction), or how the tool interacts with session state. The agent lacks enough information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the meaning or expected format of 'address' (integer vs string) or 'session_id'. The agent has no semantic hints about how these parameters relate to the patch operation, such as what address types are valid or how session_id is used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Patch instruction to NOP when supported' identifies a verb ('Patch') and resource ('instruction') with a specific action ('convert to NOP'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'patch.assemble' or 'patch.invert_branch', but the phrasing is slightly vague as it does not clarify what 'when supported' means or how the tool selects the instruction to patch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Without specifying prerequisites (e.g., must be in a session, instruction must be patchable) or when not to use it, an AI agent cannot decide when this tool is appropriate over other patch operations like 'patch.assemble' or 'patch.skip_and_return_value'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. The description says 'when supported', implying the patch may fail or be rejected, but does not clarify what makes a branch unsupported for inversion or what happens if it's not supported. No side effects or limitations are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence which is concise, but it lacks structure and front-loading of key information. It is too brief to be considered optimally concise for an operation that presumably modifies program state.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of patching branches in a binary analysis context, the description is severely incomplete. There is no output schema, return value information, or behavioral details. The description fails to inform the agent about success conditions, failure modes, or what constitutes a supported inversion.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The description does not explain what session_id or address represent or how to use them. With only 2 parameters but no schema or description enrichment, the agent has no context on what values to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Patch conditional branch by inversion when supported' states the verb 'patch' and the resource 'conditional branch by inversion', indicating what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like patch.assemble or patch.always_branch. The context of 'when supported' is ambiguous and leaves the agent guessing about applicability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like patch.always_branch and patch.never_branch offer clearer branch manipulation options, but the description does not explain why one would choose inversion over those. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool is for 'inspection,' implying it is non-destructive, but it does not confirm idempotency, safety, or side effects. It also does not explain whether the tool requires a specific session mode or whether it modifies any state. The lack of behavioral detail makes it insufficient for an agent to understand risks or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at only four words, which is efficient for a simple tool. It front-loads the verb and resource. However, for a tool with two required parameters and zero schema coverage, it may be too terse, sacrificing clarity for brevity. Nonetheless, no unnecessary words are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the domain (binary analysis) and the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. The agent cannot fully determine the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, or return values. Among many sibling tools, the description does not help an agent choose or invoke this tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter semantics. The description names the resource ('address') but does not explain the address parameter's type (integer vs. string) or what it represents (e.g., memory address, file offset, or function name). The session_id parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to infer its role from context. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Inspect patch availability at address.' clearly states the verb ('inspect') and the resource ('patch availability at address'). However, it is somewhat vague because it does not explain what 'patch availability' means in the context of binary analysis (e.g., whether it refers to binary patches, security patches, or something else). Among sibling tools like patch.assemble, patch.convert_to_nop, etc., it is distinguishable as a read-only inspection, but the lack of detail reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other patch-related tools (e.g., patch.assemble, patch.convert_to_nop, or analysis.status). The description does not specify prerequisites, such as needing an active session or an already open binary, nor does it indicate whether the address must be valid or what happens if no patch information is available. No context signals or sibling names are leveraged to provide alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether this tool modifies the system or state, what side effects occur (e.g., plugin state changes), authentication needs, or error conditions. The description is minimal and incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that succinctly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With three required parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. The agent cannot understand parameter meanings, valid actions, or tool behavior, leading to a high risk of incorrect invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the three parameters. The description does not clarify what repository_path, plugin_path, or action refer to, nor does it give valid values for action (e.g., install, uninstall). This leaves the agent with insufficient information to correctly fill parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs install/uninstall/enable/disable actions on a repository plugin, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sister tool plugin_repo.check_updates which may be a closely related sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like plugin.valid_commands or plugin.execute. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention idempotency, error handling, permissions, or consequences of removing metadata. For a removal operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is overly terse. While concise, it lacks structure to convey necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, errors, or relationship to related tools like project.metadata_store.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters at all. 'key' is ambiguous—it could be a metadata key name but this is not clarified. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove project metadata' is a verb+resource that states the basic action, but it's very vague. The name already implies removal; the description adds little. It doesn't specify what 'project metadata' encompasses or distinguish it from sibling tools like project.metadata_store and project.metadata_query.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the search is read-only, whether it requires special permissions (e.g., a valid session), how 'range' is defined (start/end parameters are polymorphic), or what happens with large matches (e.g., limit behavior). The description is insufficient for a mutation-unaware agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly longer to add necessary context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, no annotations, and complex sibling relationships, the description is too sparse. It lacks information on parameter semantics, behavior, and return format, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the roles of session_id, start, end, data_hex, or limit. For instance, it does not clarify that data_hex is a hex-encoded pattern, or that start/end accept both integers and strings. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find all data/byte-pattern matches in range' communicates a general search purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'all data/byte-pattern matches' means (e.g., is it searching the entire binary or only specific regions?) and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'binary.search_text' or 'search.data'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search.all_text, search.data, or search.next_data. With many sibling search tools, an explicit statement about scope (e.g., all bytes vs. specific patterns vs. text) or ordering (e.g., use for broad analysis vs. targeted search) is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a search operation but does not disclose whether it returns matches or offsets, if it is read-only, or if it requires specific permissions. The mutability context is unclear, and no details about performance or limits are given besides the 'limit' parameter schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one clause), which can be seen as concise, but it lacks essential details for a 5-parameter tool. It is not front-loaded with critical usage hints; the brief phrasing leaves too much ambiguity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, search scope (e.g., is it within the current binary?), or how parameters like start/end constrain the search. Sibling tools exist for specific search types, but the description does not differentiate them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings beyond names. It only mentions 'data_hex' indirectly ('raw byte patterns (hex string)'). Required parameters 'session_id' and 'data_hex' are not described, and optional parameters 'start', 'end', 'limit' lack any explanation of their roles (e.g., start/end as offsets or labels).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for raw byte patterns (hex string)' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from search tools that work on text or constants. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., within a session, binary, or address range) or how it relates to siblings like search.next_data or search.all_data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search.next_data or search.all_data. The description implies usage for hex patterns, but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when other search tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation (searching memory), what happens if no match is found, whether it advances some internal cursor, or what the return format looks like. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about behavioral traits like side effects or state changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriate in length for a tool whose name already conveys purpose. However, it could pack slightly more meaning (e.g., mentioning hex format) without loss of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling search tools, this description is insufficient. An agent would need to guess that data_hex is hex-encoded bytes, that start might be a memory address or label, and that the tool returns the next match after a given point. Critical context about return format, error cases, and relationship to search.data is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'data/byte-pattern' which maps to 'data_hex', but does not clarify that start can be either an integer address or a string (e.g., symbol name), nor does it explain the role of session_id (required for context). Two of three parameters lack any semantic context in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find next data/byte-pattern match' gives a clear verb (find) and resource (data/byte-pattern match). It distinguishes from siblings like search.next_text and search.next_constant, which are for text and constant patterns respectively, but does not explain that it's for hex byte sequences specifically, which is implicit from the parameter name 'data_hex'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs other search tools like search.data, search.next_text, or search.all_data. The description does not mention that this is a paginated/next-match variant of search.data, nor does it explain that it requires an ongoing session context (session_id). Usage is only implied by the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Remove user segment,' which implies mutation, but fails to disclose whether the action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects other segments or sessions, or changes the binary structure. The agent is left guessing about consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, which lowers the score from a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool operates in a binary analysis context (siblings like binary.segments, memory operations) with 3 unexplained parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a 2-word description is grossly inadequate. The agent lacks critical information about what a 'user segment' is, which segment gets removed, what happens to the session, or how to undo. It is the weakest link in an otherwise rich tool ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. No meaning is added beyond the raw type/required constraints in the schema. The three parameters ('session_id', 'start', 'length') remain completely unexplained—the agent does not know what each represents or how to use them together.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove user segment' clearly states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('user segment'), directly aligning with the tool name. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'segment.add_user' and related section tools, as well as other modify operations like memory.remove and annotation.undefine_symbol.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided—there is no explanation of when to remove a user segment versus alternatives. Given siblings like 'section.remove_user', 'memory.write', 'patch.convert_to_nop', and 'undo.begin', the agent could easily misuse or confuse this tool without guidance on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description is minimal and does not reveal potential side effects such as whether the file is loaded, permissions required, or if the session is modifiable (e.g., read_only parameter hints at write safety but is not explained). It does not specify what happens on failure or if duplicate opens are allowed, leaving important behaviors opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (one short sentence), which is efficient but potentially under-specified. It front-loads the core action, but the brevity may sacrifice clarity—every word should add value, and here 'binary' and 'session' are left ambiguous. A slightly longer description with context would boost its helpfulness without padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, one nested object), and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, what constitutes a 'session', or how parameters like 'options' are structured. With many sibling tools doing similar tasks (e.g., 'session.open_bytes', 'session.open_existing'), the description does not help the agent distinguish or use the tool correctly for its intended purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions for any of the 5 parameters), and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the parameter names. For example, 'options' is described only as 'object' with no guidance on valid fields, and 'deterministic' or 'update_analysis' have no explanation, making it hard for the agent to use the tool effectively. The description must compensate for this missing schema info but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Open a binary and create a session' clearly states the verb ('Open') and two resources ('binary' and 'session'), indicating the tool's primary role. However, it is vague about what 'session' means in this context (e.g., a workspace for analysis) and does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'session.open_bytes' or 'session.open_existing', which also deal with opening resources. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks the specificity to differentiate from other session-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'session.open_bytes' (for opening raw byte data) or 'session.open_existing' (for reopening a prior session). There are no usage instructions, prerequisites (e.g., file format support), or alternative scenarios mentioned, leaving the agent to guess the tool's role in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a high-level action. It does not explain whether the tool modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects. It also fails to mention how parameters like read_only, deterministic, or update_analysis affect behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, but this brevity sacrifices essential information. It is not well-structured for an agent because it lacks any breakdown of parameters or behavior. While it avoids fluff, it does not earn its place since it fails to explain the tool adequately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address prerequisites, return values, or how the tool integrates with the session lifecycle. A tool opening a session from a file should clarify if it replaces the current session or loads a snapshot, but none of this is mentioned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 5 parameters. The only implicit link is 'from an existing session's file' hinting at source_session_id, but there is no explanation of options, read_only, deterministic, or update_analysis. The description provides virtually no semantic value beyond the raw parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Open another session') and the source ('from an existing session's file'). This distinguishes it from siblings like session.open (which likely opens a new empty session) and session.open_bytes (which opens from byte data). The verb 'open' is somewhat generic but adequate given the context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as session.open or session.open_bytes. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, making it difficult for an agent to decide correctly without additional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get task result.' It fails to indicate whether this is a blocking call (waits for completion), what happens if the task is still running or failed, whether results are persisted, or what data format is returned. This is insufficient transparency for a tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short at 3 words, which could be considered concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. A single sentence is acceptable, but it doesn't earn its length by providing useful information beyond the tool name. It matches the name closely, offering little added value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'result' means, when it's available, or how to interpret the response. For a tool that likely returns variable data depending on the original task, this is a significant gap that could lead to agent confusion or errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description carries full burden to explain parameters. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property name 'task_id'. It doesn't specify what a valid task_id looks like (e.g., UUID, integer), where to obtain it, or constraints like length or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get task result' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('task result'), matching the tool name 'task.result'. It distinguishes from other task-related tools like 'task.status' and 'task.cancel', but doesn't specify the type of result or when it's available, leaving ambiguity about what 'result' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like task.status or task.cancel. There is no context about prerequisites (e.g., task must be completed), no explicit when/when-not statements, and no mention of task lifecycle status that might affect usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states a 'get' operation without clarifying whether it reads from local storage, fetches via network, or requires any specific state (e.g., an open session). It does not describe side effects, performance implications, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, which is appropriate for a simple retrieval operation. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the single-sentence description is insufficient to fully specify how to correctly invoke this tool within the context of 100+ sibling tools. The agent would struggle to understand the required input format and expected return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no additional meaning for the parameters 'session_id' or 'type_archive_id'. The agent has no guidance on what valid values look like or how to obtain them (e.g., from session.open or type_archive.list).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get one tracked type archive' uses a clear verb ('Get') and specifies the resource ('one tracked type archive'), indicating a retrieval operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like type_archive.create, type_archive.list, or type_archive.pull, and leaves the meaning of 'tracked' ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as type_archive.list (to list archives) or type_archive.open (to open an archive). No context for prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation ('import') without revealing whether it is mutating, idempotent, or requires specific permissions. Important traits like overwrite behavior, error handling, and database state changes are omitted, making the tool's behavior opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 6 words, which is concise but not structured. It front-loads the core action, but the brevity sacrifices clarity. Every word earns its place, but the description is underspecified – it could be expanded with key details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'import' means operationally, what the return value is, or how the tool interacts with the database. The agent likely lacks enough context to use this tool correctly without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the three parameters (name, session_id, type_library_id). The agent must infer their meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient. For example, 'name' could refer to the object type name, but the link to the type library is unclear. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Import object type from type library' clearly states the action (import) and the resource (object type from type library). It distinguishes from sibling 'type.import_library_type' by specifying 'object type' rather than just 'type', though it does not explicitly differentiate. Purpose is clear but lacks detail on what an 'object type' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like 'type.import_library_type' or 'type.define_user', nor does it mention prerequisites, side effects, or return values. The agent is left without guidance on appropriate invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether 'clearing' is destructive or reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., affects runtime state), or what happens if the variable doesn't exist. The term 'clear' implies modification, but no safety or persistence details are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (5 words), front-loading the action effectively. However, its brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Earns a 4 for being brief, but loses points for missing critical detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sits among many similar uidf and memory tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify return behavior, error cases, or relation to other variable manipulation tools, leaving a significant gap for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears full burden for parameter meaning. It mentions 'function user variable value' generically but does not explain critical parameters like 'def_addr' (integer/string, purpose unclear), 'after' (boolean, role not specified), or 'function_start'. This forces the agent to guess semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clear function user variable value' uses a clear verb ('clear') and resource ('function user variable value'), making the basic action understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'uidf.set_user_var_value' or 'uidf.list_user_var_values', missing an opportunity to clarify scope or intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must have a valid session or variable), no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools like 'memory.remove' or 'uidf.set_user_var_value', leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'set', implying mutation, but fails to describe side effects, idempotency, state requirements, error conditions, or whether the operation is destructive. For a mutation tool with no annotation support, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices essential detail. It is not verbose, but every sentence should earn its place; here, the sentence fails to provide enough information to be fully helpful. A 3 reflects adequate conciseness with a cost to completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 6 required, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain parameter meanings, return values, side effects, or usage context. The rich sibling environment (e.g., uidf.parse_possible_value, uidf.clear_user_var_value) is not leveraged. The description fails to meet the basic information needs of an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the JSON schema provides no explanations for the 7 parameters (after, state, value, def_addr, session_id, variable_name, function_start). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning whatsoever, leaving the agent to guess semantics from parameter names alone. This is a critical gap for a tool with 6 required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set function user variable value' clearly states the verb (set) and resource (function user variable value), distinguishing it from siblings like uidf.clear_user_var_value and uidf.list_user_var_values. It is specific enough to convey the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to set vs clear or list user variable values). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It states a 'Get' operation but does not disclose whether it is read-only, destructive, or if it requires specific session or function state. It also lacks details on error conditions, performance implications, or side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool that appears to be querying an internal state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, but it lacks structure or additional context that would make it more informative without significantly increasing length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'lifted IL flag read/write state' means, how to interpret the result, or how the parameters relate to each other. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without external domain knowledge or additional tool descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the three required parameters (address, session_id, function_start). The description only mentions 'at an address', hinting at the 'address' parameter, but does not explain 'session_id' or 'function_start' at all. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to parameterize the tool correctly, especially since both 'function_start' and 'address' accept integer or string types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get lifted IL flag read/write state at an address' specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'lifted IL flag read/write state', which gives a clear purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'value.reg' or 'value.stack' that also retrieve value-related information in a binary analysis context, and the meaning of 'lifted IL flag read/write state' may be jargon that is not immediately clear without domain knowledge.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'value.possible', 'memory.read', or other value-related tools in the sibling list. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and vague description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, mutates state, or what happens if parameters are invalid. The 'at/after an address' phrase is ambiguous without clarifying behavior when after is true or false.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at 6 words, front-loading the verb and resource. However, it under-specifies meaning, which is not ideal conciseness but rather lacking necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, error conditions, or distinguish between 'at' vs 'after' semantics. Compared to similar binary analysis tools, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate for all 5 parameters. The description only references 'register' and 'address' implicitly, ignoring session_id, function_start, and after. It adds no meaning beyond what the parameter names suggest.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get register value at/after an address' specifies the verb (Get) and resource (register value at/after address), but is vague about what 'at/after an address' means in the context of binary analysis. Among siblings like value.possible, value.stack, and value.flags_at, its purpose is somewhat distinguishable as register-specific, but not clearly differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like value.possible (for possible values) or memory.read (for raw memory). The description does not mention prerequisites like session_id or address context, nor when 'after' should be set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is an 'insert' (mutation) but provides no details on side effects, validation, reversibility, permissions, or error scenarios. Critical information about what happens to the workflow structure is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but at the expense of completeness. Every word is used, but the description lacks structure and fails to front-load key details like parameter dependency or intended use case.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and is a mutation operation, the one-sentence description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain the workflow context, parameter relationships, or what success/failure looks like. Sibling differentiation is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the four parameters. For example, it does not explain that 'activity' is the reference activity, 'activities' are the items to insert, or how session_id and workflow_name identify the target workflow. The agent is left guessing parameter roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action: 'Insert activities after an activity.' The verb 'insert' and resources 'activities' and 'activity' are specific, and the positional constraint 'after' distinguishes from generic insertion. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'workflow.insert' or clarify the scope (e.g., within a workflow).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'workflow.insert' or 'workflow.remove'. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., workflow must exist, activity must exist) or contextual cues. Agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it can return large data sets, if pagination or truncation occurs, or what happens for invalid addresses. The description is too terse to inform the agent about side effects or performance considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (five words), which is concise but arguably under-specified. While it avoids fluff, it sacrifices necessary detail. There is no structure beyond a single phrase, which is acceptable for a very simple tool but inadequate given the three parameters and zero schema documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description fails to provide enough context. It doesn't explain the return format, whether results are ordered, or what the length parameter controls. In the context of a disassembler/decompiler suite, an agent needs more details to use this tool effectively among many cross-reference tools. The description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no information about parameters. The tool has three parameters (session_id, address, length) but the description mentions none of their semantics—not even that session_id is required or that address can be integer or string. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent guessing about the role of length.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Code references from an address' uses a clear verb-noun phrase indicating the tool retrieves cross-references pointing from a given address. However, it doesn't specify what type of code references (calls, jumps, etc.) or what the output looks like, which is minimal but adequate to convey the core purpose. Among siblings like xref.code_refs_to and xref.data_refs_from, the name and description provide some differentiation but could be more explicit about 'from' vs 'to' code references.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided—there is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like xref.code_refs_to or xref.data_refs_from. The description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., requiring a valid address from a binary analysis session) or context for when this tool is appropriate. This absence forces the agent to infer based solely on the tool name, which is insufficient for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. The description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits: what gets aborted, state implications, or safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very concise (3 words), the tool's complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema, no annotations) demands more substance. This is under-specification, not conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what aborting entails, the role of session_id, or typical usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the required 'session_id' parameter. Adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare type declaration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Abort' and specifies the resource 'base-address detection', distinguishing it from siblings like baseaddr.detect and baseaddr.reasons.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as baseaddr.detect. No context about prerequisites or side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It only says 'save,' which implies a write operation, but does not mention whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, or is destructive. No details on error behavior or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence, 8 words). While concise, it sacrifices critical information. It is front-loaded with the action, but every word is necessary – yet insufficient. A 3 reflects that brevity is achieved but at the cost of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success, what is returned, error cases, or even the format of the file. The agent lacks essential context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It fails to explain either parameter: 'path' (likely the output file path) and 'session_id' (which session's binary view?). The parameter names are suggestive but not defined, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Save') and the resource ('current binary view'), with a target ('to a file path'). This is specific enough to distinguish from other tools like binary.summary or binary.functions, though it does not explicitly differentiate from database.save.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., database.save_bndb, session.save). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what happens when no sections exist, or the default ordering. For a listing tool, especially with missing annotations, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase, which is concise but lacks structural completeness. It front-loads the core action but misses opportunities to add value without bloat. Given the minimal content, it earns a baseline score for not being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a paginated list tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description is too brief. It does not specify what data is returned per section, whether the list is exhaustive or limited, or the interaction with the session context. The tool's purpose in a larger binary analysis workflow is unclear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. The description only mentions 'pagination' generically, referencing the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters but not explaining their semantics (e.g., results per page, start index). For three parameters with zero schema documentation, this adds minimal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'List sections with pagination', which provides a clear verb ('List') and resource ('sections'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'binary.segments' by adding the pagination hint, but does not clarify whether these sections are binary file sections or memory sections, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'binary.segments' or 'segment.add_user'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a loaded binary) or context such as file type constraints. The pagination mention is vague without explaining typical use cases for pagination parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'store function metadata by key'. It does not state whether overwrites are allowed, whether the metadata persists across sessions, whether there are size limits on values, or if there are side effects on other tools (e.g., does this affect 'metadata.query' results?). The description is too terse for a tool that likely mutates shared state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is short and to the point, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Every word is necessary but insufficient. For a 4-parameter tool with 0 schema coverage, this is closer to minimal viable than optimally concise; the sentence lacks front-loaded action context but is simple enough not to be wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would not know what 'function_start' accepts, whether 'value' can be a string/number/object, or what happens if the key already exists. Sibling tools like 'metadata.store' likely do something similar, but no differentiation is provided. This is inadequate for an AI to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description is the sole source for parameter understanding. The description fails to explain what 'session_id', 'function_start', 'key', and 'value' are. 'function_start' has a complex oneOf schema (integer or string) with no indication of when each type is used. The value param is {} (any type) with no constraints listed. The description adds no semantic value over the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it stores metadata by key, with a specific verb ('store') and resource ('function metadata'). However, among over 100 sibling tools there are 'metadata.store', 'metadata.query', and 'function.metadata_query', and this tool is named 'function.metadata_store'. The description does not distinguish it from 'metadata.store' or other metadata tools, which is a missed opportunity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'metadata.store', 'function.metadata_query', or 'metadata.query'. There is no hint of prerequisites (e.g., does it require a session?), whether the metadata is persistent or ephemeral, or what key-value restrictions exist. This leaves the agent guessing about context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, but only says 'Get', implying a read operation. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, costly, or requires certain analysis state. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks any structure or front-loading of key details. It is not verbose, but it is too minimal to be well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool dealing with complex SSA memory analysis, the description is woefully incomplete. It has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter descriptions. It fails to explain what 'definition and uses' means or what the tool returns, making it inadequate for confident agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'by memory version', hinting at the 'version' parameter, but provides no meaning for 'session_id', 'function_start', or 'level'. The parameter names are partially self-explanatory but insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'SSA memory definition and uses by memory version'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'function.ssa_var_def_use' by indicating this is for memory, not variables, but does not explicitly name the sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'function.ssa_var_def_use' or memory read/write tools. The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what it does, but does not explain behavior: what happens if the address is invalid, whether SSA and level options affect the result, or if the instruction is returned as raw text or structured data. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but insufficiently structured for the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core action, but every sentence should earn its place; here, the one sentence does not provide enough information to use the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and 100+ sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return value (likely an IL instruction object), prerequisites (function must be analyzed), or how to handle optional parameters. The agent cannot determine correct invocation from this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. It only mentions 'source address' but does not explain 'session_id', 'function_start', 'ssa', or 'level'. The agent is left guessing what these mean (e.g., level is an enum for LLIL/MLIL/HLIL, but this is not stated). This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get IL instruction by source address' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IL instruction'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'il.function' (which returns all IL) and 'binary.get_function_il_at' (which gets IL for a function). It defines the exact scope: a single instruction by a source address.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'il.address_to_index' or 'il.index_to_address'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., analysis must be complete) or when not to use it (e.g., for a range of IL instead use 'il.function'). The agent receives no comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose if there are side effects, authentication requirements, or any constraints. The behavioral transparency is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at only one phrase, which is efficient but lacks structure. Every word earns its place, but it is too sparse for a tool with a required parameter and no other documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned metadata contains, how to interpret it, or any usage constraints. No output schema exists, so the agent has no idea what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'session_id' with no description (0% schema description coverage). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. The agent receives no guidance on what session_id represents or how to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get architecture and platform metadata' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (architecture and platform metadata). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'binja.info' or 'database.info', though it could elaborate on what 'metadata' includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The sibling list is extensive, but the description offers no comparative advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get ... summary' which implies a read operation, but offers no details about output format, side effects, performance, or whether the summary is computed on demand. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 4-word sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's basic purpose. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it sacrifices helpful detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what the summary contains, how session_id connects, or what the agent can expect from the result. The tool sits among many siblings that likely need differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for the sole required parameter 'session_id'. It does not clarify its provenance, format, or how it relates to the summary. The description fails entirely to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get binary/session summary' which clearly indicates a retrieval operation and identifies the resource (binary/session). It distinguishes from siblings like binary.functions or binary.strings by using the distinct term 'summary', but it does not specify what constitutes a summary, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as binary.functions or session.list. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's output type ('lines') without mentioning that it is a read operation, any authentication needs, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, but this is under-specification rather than efficient communication. Every word is earned, but the description lacks critical details, so the conciseness comes at the cost of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return value structure, pagination behavior, or the relationship between parameters. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's usage without external context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. While 'start', 'length', and 'limit' are somewhat intuitive, the description fails to explain how they interplay (e.g., start as address or offset, length in bytes, limit on results). The agent must infer from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Address-range disassembly lines' clearly indicates the tool returns disassembly for a given address range. The verb is implied (list/return), and the resource is specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like disasm.linear or disasm.function, relying on the name for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context signals show many sibling disassembly tools, but the description offers no criteria for selection, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Query' implies a read-only operation, which is consistent, but the description does not mention any side effects, required permissions, or whether empty results are possible. It provides minimal behavioral insight beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with minimal words, which is concise, but it does not front-load critical context or earn its place by providing necessary details. It avoids fluff but is too sparse to be considered well-structured for practical use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, return values, edge cases, or how this tool fits into the metadata management workflow, making it insufficient for correct agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameters have descriptions. The description only mentions 'key' as a parameter, ignoring 'session_id' and 'function_start'. With three required parameters, the description should explain each one's role and expected format, but it fails to do so, leaving the agent to infer meaning from naming alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Query') and a clear resource ('function metadata by key'), which conveys the basic action. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its sibling 'metadata.query' (also present in the list) or 'function.metadata_query', and it offers no additional context about what 'metadata' refers to or how it relates to the broader domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'metadata.store', 'metadata.query', 'function.metadata_store', and 'function.metadata_remove', there is no indication of which tool to choose for different metadata operations or query scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'lists' variable references, implying a read operation, but does not confirm non-destructive behavior, explain what constitutes a 'variable reference', or mention any side effects, performance constraints, or error conditions. The agent lacks essential behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is extremely short, but conciseness is not a virtue when substance is missing. It earns a baseline score because it is not verbose, but the lack of structure (e.g., no bullets, no parameter summary) and omission of essential details prevent a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has five parameters with no explanations, no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is grossly incomplete. The agent cannot determine required inputs, return format, or how to interpret results. For a tool of this complexity, the description provides far too little context to be usable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, leaving all five parameters (`session_id`, `function_start`, `address`, `level`, `length`) entirely undocumented in the schema. The description only implicitly references `address` but fails to explain the meaning of each parameter, their relationships, or constraints (e.g., what `level` enum values 'mlil'/'hlil' mean, what `length` controls). This is a critical gap for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List variable references originating from an address' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('variable references'), with a qualifying prepositional phrase that distinguishes it from sibling tools like `function.var_refs` (which likely lists all variable references in a function) and the `xref` family. The purpose is immediately clear and unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `function.var_refs` or `xref.code_refs_from`. The agent receives no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The brief description only implies utility from the name, which is insufficient for informed selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'lists' support, implying a read operation. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any constraints. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, which is concise. However, it is not necessarily efficient because it omits critical information. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the output contains (e.g., list of supported rewrite types, status flags). It does not mention return values at all. Given the tool's role in a complex environment (IL analysis), the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It vaguely mentions 'one function and IL level' but does not clarify what function_start (integer or string) represents, what level (string) expects, or why session_id is required. No parameter details are added beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('IL rewrite support for one function and IL level'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling rewrite tools (e.g., il.rewrite.noop_replace) by indicating it is a query capability rather than a mutation. However, the exact meaning of 'IL rewrite support' remains vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. Siblings like il.function or il.instruction_by_addr could also be relevant, but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a write operation but gives no additional behavioral details. With no annotations, the agent is left unaware of side effects, prerequisites (e.g., active session), validation rules, or whether the operation is reversible. Essential information for a mutation tool is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail. A 3 is appropriate: it is not verbose, but it does not earn its place because it fails to convey enough to enable reliable tool use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what a loader setting is, how values are structured, the significance of type_name, or any behavioral outcomes. The agent cannot use this tool confidently without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description 'Set one loader setting value' adds no meaning to any parameter—there is no mention of what 'key', 'value', 'type_name', 'session_id', or 'value_type' represent or how they should be used. The agent must guess parameter semantics entirely from names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set one loader setting value' clearly identifies the action (set) and resource (loader setting value). Among sibling tools, the purpose is distinct from the read-oriented 'loader.load_settings_get' and type-listing 'loader.load_settings_types', making tool selection straightforward.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. For example, it does not mention that the setting must exist, that a session must be open, or that 'loader.load_settings_get' should be used for reading. The agent is left without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List loader settings type names' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, how the output is structured, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence—short and to the point. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, leading to missing information on parameter semantics and behavior. It is concise but not adequately informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no behavioral annotations, the description is incomplete. Even for a simple list tool, it should clarify what 'type names' are, what the return format looks like, and how session_id relates to the operation. The current description leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'session_id' with 0% description coverage, meaning no schema description exists. The tool description does not add any meaning to this parameter (e.g., what a session ID is, expected format, or where to obtain it). The parameter remains opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List loader settings type names' provides a clear verb and resource that distinguishes this tool from sibling loader tools like loader.load_settings_get and loader.load_settings_set, which get/set specific settings. However, it doesn't clarify what constitutes a 'type name' or how this differs from type_library.list tools, so it's not perfectly explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., before calling loader.load_settings_get to discover available types). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or hints about preferred usage. The description is purely declarative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining side effects, safety, error conditions, or what 'the view' refers to. Critical details about address validity or return behavior are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly brief—one short sentence. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail. A well-structured description would front-load the purpose but include minimal essential guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotation, the description must provide comprehensive context. It fails to specify what 'the view' is, how addresses work, or what the tool returns, making it nearly unusable for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the three required parameters (session_id, address, length), their format, or semantics. An agent cannot infer what 'address' types or 'session_id' means from this text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Read bytes from the view' uses a specific verb (read) and resource (bytes from the view), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory.write (write) and memory.insert (insert).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory.reader_read or memory.write. There is no mention of context, preconditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Write bytes (hex) to the view'—a mutation action with no mention of side effects, idempotency, error conditions (e.g., invalid address, read-only view), or if data overwrites or appends. This is insufficient for a tool modifying state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with 6 words—very concise. It front-loads the action ('Write bytes (hex)'). However, it sacrifices essential detail for brevity, borderline under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 required parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and 100+ sibling tools. For a mutating tool in a complex environment (Binary Ninja), the description completely fails to explain addresses, output, or integration with sessions—far from complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'hex' for data_hex and implies address is a location, but doesn't clarify address format (integer vs string meaning), session_id purpose, or data_hex constraints (length, endianness, partial vs full overwrite). This leaves the agent guessing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title 'memory.write' and description 'Write bytes (hex) to the view' make it clear the tool writes data to a memory view using a specific resource (the view). The sibling list includes 'memory.read', 'memory.insert', and 'memory.remove', which are distinct in operation (read, insert, remove) so this tool's write purpose is well-differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memory.insert' or 'memory.reader_read'/'memory.writer_write'. Given the sibling tools and context signals (3 required params, 0% schema coverage), the agent has no hints about prerequisites (e.g., an open session with a writable view) or scenarios where writing hex data is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool patches (mutation) and is conditional on support, but does not describe what happens on failure (error/no-op), whether the change is reversible, how the instruction is modified (e.g., condition always true vs. unconditional jump), or any side effects like size changes. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and a constraint. It earns its place without verbosity. However, it could be more precise (e.g., 'always branch' is ambiguous between unconditional jump and forcing condition true), slightly reducing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a patching tool (binary modification, interaction with a session), the description omits crucial details: expected return values, error handling on unsupported branches, how to specify the address (absolute/relative), and whether modifications persist. An agent lacks context to invoke this tool confidently without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the two parameters. 'address' and 'session_id' are not explained; their types (integer/string) do not clarify usage (e.g., address of branch to patch or target? Absolute or relative?). The description fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's action (patch) and the target resource (conditional branch), specifying the outcome (always branch). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch.never_branch and patch.invert_branch, though it could be more explicit about what 'always branch' means (e.g., convert to JMP).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch.never_branch or patch.invert_branch. The phrase 'when supported' hints at a prerequisite but does not explain how to verify support or what to do if unsupported. Lacks explicit recommendations or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals none of: whether this is a read-only operation, if it returns results or modifies state, what 'constant' means semantically, pagination behavior, or performance implications. A score of 1 would require contradiction; instead, this is simply anemic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, 5 words, which is lean. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices clarity and completeness. This is under-specification, not efficiency. A score of 3 reflects being too brief to be fully valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. The agent cannot determine parameter types, return format, or behavior. Sibling tools like 'search.all_text' and 'search.all_data' exist, implying similar search patterns, but this tool's description is notably sparse in comparison.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no documentation for any of the 5 parameters, including the required ones. The schema names ('start', 'end', 'constant', 'limit', 'session_id') hint at meaning but the description provides no additional context on formats (e.g., what types start/end accept – address? line number?) or the role of 'session_id'. For a tool with 0% coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Find') and resource ('constant occurrences') with a scope ('in range'). This differentiates it from siblings like 'search.next_constant' (single occurrence) and 'search.all_text'/'search.all_data' (different types). A 5 is not given because the term 'range' is ambiguous – it could mean a cell range, address range, or something else.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar ones like 'search.next_constant', 'search.data', or 'search.all_text'. There is no explanation of prerequisites, the meaning of 'range', or when to prefer this over alternatives. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'close' — not whether closing is synchronous vs. asynchronous, whether it triggers side effects (e.g., saving state, releasing locks), or what happens to resources tied to the session. There is no mention of error behavior for nonexistent or already-closed sessions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise — only 4 words. This is appropriately short for a simple close operation, but it comes at the cost of behavioral and parameter details. No extraneous content exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and a single parameter that is poorly documented, the description is incomplete. There are many sibling session tools (session.open, session.list, session.mode, session.set_mode, session.open_bytes, session.open_existing) but no context about how this tool interacts with them. A user can guess that session_id comes from session.list or session.open, but the description doesn't confirm this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of param documentation. The description provides no information about what session_id expects (e.g., format, source — from session.list? a saved value?). The single parameter is completely undocumented beyond its name and type, which is insufficient for a required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Close one open session' which clearly conveys the action (close) and resource (session). It distinguishes itself from session.open (open), session.list (list), and session.mode (get mode) among the siblings. However, it doesn't clarify which session types it closes (e.g., only sessions opened via session.open vs. all session types).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings like session.list, session.open, and session.mode, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., session must be open), what happens if session_id is invalid, or when not to call it (e.g., if another operation depends on the session).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it 'updates' the mode, implying a mutation, but does not explain side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or how it affects other session operations. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasteful words, and it is front-loaded with the action. However, it is overly sparse given the complexity of the tool, and the lack of structure (e.g., separating what each parameter does) makes it less useful than it could be. It is concise but at the expense of substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a tool that mutates session state, especially with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. It does not explain what 'safety/determinism mode' means, the effect of each parameter, or what the tool returns. The presence of related tools like session.mode increases the need for clearer context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the parameters. It mentions 'safety/determinism' which hints at read_only and deterministic, but does not explicitly map them or clarify the required session_id. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Update' with the resource 'session safety/determinism mode', making it clear that this tool modifies an existing session's mode. It distinguishes itself from session.mode (which likely reads/gets the mode) by indicating a change operation. However, the phrase 'safety/determinism mode' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit about what aspects are affected.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like session.mode or when it is appropriate to change these settings. The description gives no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this tool should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'async' and 'start', implying non-blocking execution, but omits critical details: cancellation options, side effects, how to monitor or retrieve results, and any resource implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At four words, the description is extremely concise, but this brevity sacrifices essential information. Every word is functional, but the description is under-specified for an agent to use effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema but rich sibling context (many analysis-related tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (no output schema), how to track the async task, or how this tool relates to analysis.update and analysis.update_and_wait, leaving key gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the session_id parameter at all. The parameter name hints at a session identifier, but the tool description adds no meaning beyond what the schema field name conveys, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start async analysis update task' uses a verb phrase specifying the action (start) and resource (async analysis update task). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like analysis.update (likely synchronous) and analysis.update_and_wait by emphasizing 'async', but it doesn't define what an analysis update involves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this async variant versus synchronous alternatives like analysis.update or analysis.update_and_wait. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or situations to avoid, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. "Best-effort" hints at potential failure, but there's no explanation of cancellation semantics (e.g., what happens to in-progress results, whether it's reversible, if it triggers cascading effects).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 4 words, with the qualifier in parentheses. Every word is meaningful. Could be slightly improved by front-loading the cancellation scope (e.g., what tasks it applies to).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover return values, failure modes, and side effects. It only provides a one-word qualifier. The 20+ task-related sibling tools increase the need for clarity on which tasks this applies to.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one parameter (task_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the name; however, with only one required parameter and no enums, the semantics are largely self-evident from the parameter name and tool purpose. A 3 is appropriate given the simplicity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Cancel task" is a clear verb+resource pair, distinguishing it from task.status, task.result, etc. However, it doesn't specify what kind of tasks (only task-related siblings exist), and "best-effort" is vague—does it cancel any task or only specific ones?
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like task.analysis_update, task.search_text, etc. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., does the task need to be running?) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Query') and mentions 'incoming/outgoing references', but doesn't specify permissions, side effects, response format, or pagination. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, efficiently front-loaded but too sparse. While compact, it omits essential details, making it less helpful than a slightly longer but more complete description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only two parameters with zero documentation. The description fails to explain what the tool returns, how incoming/outgoing references are defined, or how to use the parameters. Very incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. The two required parameters (name, type_archive_id) are completely undocumented, leaving the agent with no guidance on their format, semantics, or expected values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Query' and the resource 'archive incoming/outgoing references for one type', which is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like type_archive.create or type_archive.list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply describes what it does without any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to related tools (e.g., xref.code_refs_to, binary.functions).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It fails to mention that a valid session_id is required, what 'attached to the view' means, or what happens if no libraries are attached (empty list vs error). The description is too minimal for a mutation-capable tool in a tools ecosystem.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for the complexity of the tool ecosystem. It could be expanded with usage context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and 1 required parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, what 'attached to the view' means, or how to interpret results. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the resource ('type libraries attached to the view') but provides no details about the session_id parameter, such as its format, role, or constraints. The agent cannot tell what value to provide for session_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List type libraries attached to the view' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (type libraries attached to the view). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like type_library.create, type_library.load, and type_library.get by specifying 'attached to the view' rather than general library operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active session or view), nor does it contrast with other type library tools (create, load, get, import). The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the type database), required permissions, or error behavior. The description is too brief to convey any expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that gets to the point. It is front-loaded, with no fluff, but it is under-specified for the complexity of the tool. Still, for the little it says, it is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter, the return format, or any dependencies. For a parsing tool, this lacks critical context for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention any parameter specifics; however, the schema names imply meanings (e.g., session_id, declarations, include_dirs, import_dependencies, options). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the parameter names suggest, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Parse C declarations for types/variables/functions' uses a specific verb and resource, but it lacks detail on what the parsing entails or how it differs from type.parse_string. It is not a tautology, but it is generic and does not distinguish it from similar parsing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like type.parse_string or type.define_user. The description implies it is for parsing declarations, but it does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid address), return format, whether the set is mutable, or side effects. The minimal description fails to inform the agent about non-obvious behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise. However, conciseness is not a virtue when it sacrifices necessary information. It is front-loaded but under-specified, so it earns a middle score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what a 'possible value set' is, how to interpret results, or the role of 'level' and 'ssa'. The tool cannot be used correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description adds no meaning to parameters like 'ssa', 'level', 'address', 'function_start', or 'session_id'. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is a critical gap that leaves the agent guessing parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get IL possible value set at an address' clearly states the action (Get), the resource (IL possible value set), and the location (at an address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'value.reg', 'value.stack', and 'value.flags_at' which target different value types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'value.reg', 'function.ssa_var_def_use'), nor when not to use it. There are no prerequisites or context hints, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Get tags' implying a read-only operation, but it does not describe what happens if the address has no tags, what the output format is, or whether the tool has side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is potentially under-specified for a tool with two required parameters and no schema descriptions. The brevity saves space but sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description should at least mention the return value or provide an example. Without output schema or parameter descriptions, the agent lacks complete information to use the tool correctly. The context of sibling tools like annotation.add_tag helps slightly but does not fill the gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the JSON schema provides no explanations for 'address' or 'session_id'. The description adds no parameter details—it does not explain that 'address' can be integer or string (likely a memory address or label) or what 'session_id' represents. An agent cannot infer correct usage without external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get tags at address' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (tags) with a location parameter. It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like annotation.add_tag or annotation.get_comment, though it does not elaborate on what exactly is returned (e.g., a list of tag names).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like annotation.add_tag or annotation.get_comment. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether tags must exist or how they are created, nor any when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this operation is destructive, requires analysis to be held, affects cross-references, or can be undone. The only behavioral clue is 'undefine', implying removal, but no side effects are stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise at four words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, given the lack of annotations and param documentation, some additional context would be justified without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive annotation operation with 2 required parameters and no output schema or annotation hints, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain prerequisites (e.g., must a symbol exist?), return value (success indicator?), or relationship to other 'undefine' tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no documentation for either parameter. The description mentions 'address' implicitly but does not explain what type of address (e.g., virtual address, offset) or the required format for 'session_id'. The description should clarify these gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Undefine') and resource ('user symbol') with location ('at address'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'annotation.define_symbol' or 'annotation.rename_symbol'. While the sibling set includes several annotation tools, the description makes the inverse action clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'annotation.undefine_data_var' or implications of undefining a symbol (e.g., whether it affects references). The context of a binary analysis tool suggests undo/revert might be relevant, but nothing is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires a session in analysis mode, or what happens if the function has no basic blocks. The description lacks all behavioral context beyond the basic listing and pagination hint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at one sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word adds value, though it could benefit from a second sentence on usage or parameters without breaking conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior (when limit/offset are omitted), required permissions, or error cases. A tool in a binary analysis context with siblings like 'binary.functions' and 'binary.basic_blocks_at' needs more context to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no parameter-level details. It does not explain that 'session_id' identifies the open session, 'function_start' is the start address of the function (can be int or string), or how 'limit' and 'offset' control pagination behavior. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'basic blocks in a function', and adds 'with pagination' to clarify scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'binary.basic_blocks_at' which likely returns blocks at a given address rather than listing all blocks with pagination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'binary.basic_blocks_at', 'disasm.function', or other enumeration tools. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., function must be analyzed) or when pagination would be necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'when supported' hints at conditional behavior (i.e., it may fail on some architectures), which is useful but vague. It does not disclose what happens on failure, whether it modifies instruction bytes or metadata, or if it is reversible. A 3 is reasonable because it offers some insight beyond a tautology but lacks specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 7 words, extremely concise. It conveys the core action and a key condition ('when supported'). All information is front-loaded. However, it could still improve by being more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (mutating operation, dependency on architecture support, two required parameters with no documentation), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, failure modes, parameter semantics, and the meaning of 'supported'. The context signals indicate high schema coverage gap (0%), no output schema, and many sibling tools—demanding richer description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two required parameters (session_id, address) with 0% description coverage. The description does not add any meaning to these parameters—e.g., what session_id refers to, what address format is expected, or any constraints. Neither schema nor description explains these, leaving the agent guessing. Baseline would be 4 with 0 params, but here there are 2 params with no help.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Patch conditional branch to never branch when supported.' This clearly identifies the verb (Patch), the resource (conditional branch), and the intended effect (never branch). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like patch.always_branch, patch.invert_branch, or patch.convert_to_nop, which share similar patching semantics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch.always_branch, patch.invert_branch, or patch.convert_to_nop. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a valid session or a specific address, nor any context about when it's appropriate or not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create and optionally attach'—no mention of side effects, persistence, permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. This leaves critical unknowns for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at seven words, with no fluff. It is front-loaded and every word carries weight. However, conciseness comes at the cost of clarity for the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to define 'type archive', explain attachment semantics, or specify parameter roles, leaving large gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'attach' is boolean (optional attachment) but provides no explanation for 'path', 'session_id', or 'platform_name'. An agent cannot determine proper values from this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('type archive'), and hints at the optional attach behavior. However, it does not clarify what 'attach' means or how this tool differs from siblings like type_archive.open or type_archive.push, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like type_archive.open, type_archive.pull, or type_archive.push. An agent must infer from the name alone, which is insufficient for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'open and optionally attach' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether the archive is loaded into memory, if it modifies the session, or if it is a read-only operation). This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices substance. While not verbose, it fails to earn its place by providing essential context. A slightly longer description would improve utility without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the rich set of sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It omits return values, behavioral details, and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its three parameters (path, attach, session_id), and the description itself adds no information about their meaning or expected formats. The agent must guess, which is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('open') and the resource ('type archive'), with the optional 'attach' distinguishing it from sibling tools like type_archive.list, type_archive.get, and type_archive.pull. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as type_archive.get, type_archive.pull, or type_archive.create. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Export type into a type library' but fails to reveal whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, requires specific permissions, or what happens to existing types in the library. No side effects or state changes are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, which is efficient. However, it sacrifices essential detail for brevity, making it somewhat under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and zero schema descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations) and the sensitive operation of transferring data into a library, the description is insufficient. The agent cannot infer parameter semantics, return values, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the JSON schema provides no descriptions for any of the 5 parameters. The description only mentions the action but adds no explanation for parameters like 'name', 'type_source', 'import_dependencies', or 'session_id'. The agent would be left guessing the purpose of these fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool exports a 'type' into a 'type library', which is a clear verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'type.import_library_type' and 'type.define_user' by suggesting a move or copy operation rather than definition or import.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'type.import_library_type' or 'type.define_user'. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring the type_library to already exist or the type_source format, nor does it specify when export is appropriate versus creating a library first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, safety (presumably read-only), error handling (e.g., address not in a function), or whether the returned IL is the raw or analyzed form. The 'full IL' term is ambiguous without context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple purpose, but it could be structurally improved by adding parameter clarifications or a link to documentation without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what IL is, how to interpret the level, what ssa does, what address format is expected, or what the tool returns. A user would need external knowledge to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the four parameters: the meaning of the 'level' enum (llil/mlil/hlil), the 'ssa' boolean, the format of 'address' (oneOf integer/string), or the 'session_id' context. The agent must infer entirely from names and enum values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the full IL (intermediate language) for the function containing a given address. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like binary.get_function_at (which gets function metadata) and binary.get_function_disassembly_at (disassembly), as well as il.function (which may require a function index).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternative IL retrieval methods (e.g., il.function, il.instruction_by_addr), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., analysis must be complete) or exclude cases (e.g., address not in any function).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool creates a file, but does not mention whether it overwrites existing files, requires authentication, has size limits, or what happens on failure. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is very concise. However, it sacrifices essential details for brevity. While not verbose, it is incomplete, which reduces its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain return values, side effects, constraints, or parameter relationships. The agent would be left with many unknowns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds meaning only for 'data_base64' (it mentions base64 data). The other four parameters (name, folder_id, project_id, description) are not explained; the agent must rely on their names. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('project file') with a clear input format ('from base64 data'). It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings like project.create and project.create_folder, which create projects and folders respectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no error conditions, and no mention of context (e.g., whether the project must already exist). The agent must infer usage from the parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so full burden on description. The description says 'Begin undo transaction' but doesn't explain what happens if a transaction is already open, if there's a nesting limit, or if it's idempotent. Critical behavioral gaps for a stateful operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short at 3 words, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It conveys basic purpose but omits critical details like return value or side effects. Could be more informative within a sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is part of a larger undo system (siblings: undo.commit, undo.revert, undo.undo, undo.redo) and has no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what begins an undo transaction means, how it interacts with the sibling tools, or what the agent should expect after calling it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 1 parameter (session_id) with 0% coverage. The description adds no param-specific info. Baseline is 4 for 0 params, but here there is 1 parameter. The description says nothing about session_id's role, format, or constraints. With low coverage (0%), description should compensate but doesn't.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it begins an undo transaction. However, the term 'transaction' is ambiguous—it's unclear if this is database-like or sequence-based. Among siblings like undo.commit, undo.revert, undo.undo, undo.redo, the purpose is distinct but could be sharper.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it must precede undo.undo or undo.revert but doesn't state this. Siblings suggest an undo grouping pattern, yet no context on when to begin vs not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Get stack contents' but does not explain what 'at/after' means, whether the tool is read-only, what happens with invalid addresses, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a safe or correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is efficient but comes at the cost of clarity. Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no schema descriptions), it is under-specified and not front-loaded with critical operational details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or any constraints, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter information beyond the names. The description mentions 'at/after an address', hinting at the 'address' and 'after' parameters, but does not explain 'size', 'stack_offset', 'function_start', or 'session_id'. The agent must guess their roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets stack contents at/after an address, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like value.reg (registers) and memory.read (arbitrary memory).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory.read or value.reg. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action and pagination. It doesn't mention whether this is read-only, what data variables are, how pagination behaves (e.g., ordering, total count), or any session requirements beyond the schema. The term 'List' implies a safe read, but that's implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with a required session parameter and pagination, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks any context about what data variables are, what session_id refers to, and what the return format is (though no output schema exists). The agent can invoke it correctly with session_id, but lacks broader context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'pagination,' which loosely maps to limit and offset, but provides no explanation of session_id or the pagination semantics. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only hints at one concept.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'data variables' and notes pagination. It clearly conveys the primary action, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list operations like binary.functions or binary.strings, relying instead on the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to guess based on naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states it is a 'Generic API bridge' without mentioning side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The user cannot infer whether this tool can mutate state or is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two phrases), which aligns with conciseness. However, it is too brief for a complex tool with four parameters and no annotations, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (4 params, nested objects, no output schema) and the presence of many specialized sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, session requirements, or how to construct correct targets.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the 'target' parameter. The 'args' and 'kwargs' parameters are utterly ambiguous despite being critical for usage. 'session_id' is not mentioned. Baseline 4 would require more, but 3 reflects mild compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies that the tool is a 'Generic API bridge' that calls a 'bn.* or bv.* target path', which clearly identifies the verb (call) and resource (API endpoints). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by suggesting low-level API access rather than specific operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that offer more specific, safer operations. The description does not warn against using it when a specialized tool exists, nor does it explain prerequisites like requiring an active session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says "Read database global string key." It does not mention whether the operation is read-only (assumed), if it requires any specific session state, if it can fail (e.g., key not found), or if it has side effects. The agent lacks safety guarantees about idempotence or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words beyond the title. Every word earns its place, but it may be too terse for a tool with two parameters and no annotations. It is front-loaded with purpose, but lacks necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. The tool's simplicity (read a string) mitigates the gap, but there is no discussion of return behavior, error conditions, or data semantics. A complete description would need to address these gaps even for a simple read.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema names provide (key, session_id). The description does not explain the format, constraints, or role of the session_id or key parameters. Baseline is 3 due to low coverage, but it does not exceed that baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Read database global string key." clearly states the verb (Read), the resource (database global string), and the scope (key), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. While it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, the context of sibling tools like database.write_global and database.info provides implicit differentiation, so it's still clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as metadata.query or database.info. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, context for the key (e.g., global vs. session-specific), or hints about when a read is appropriate. This leaves the agent without explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It names the output ('full disassembly') but does not disclose behavioral details like whether it modifies state (destructive hint), if it requires specific session modes, what happens if the address is invalid, or the format of the returned disassembly. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 8 words that states the core purpose. No fluff, but it could benefit from a brief second sentence on usage context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and two required parameters with zero schema documentation, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It doesn't clarify return format, error cases, or parameter meanings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither schema nor description explain what 'session_id' or 'address' mean. The description implies address is a program counter but doesn't clarify the type or format, nor what session_id refers to. Baseline is 3 due to low coverage but description compensates slightly by linking address to 'containing function'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'full disassembly for the function containing an address', clearly indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'disasm.linear' and 'disasm.range' which cover linear/range disassembly, but could more explicitly contrast with those.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'binary.get_function_disassembly_at' or 'disasm.linear'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the session must be open, the binary must be loaded) or when this tool might be inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, the description does not clarify whether the tool is read-only (likely), what happens if the project_id is invalid, what format the listing returns, or whether it shows nested contents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. It avoids verbose phrasing while conveying the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe the structure of the returned listing (files vs. folders, nested or flat), edge cases like empty projects, or how this tool fits into the project lifecycle.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter (project_id) and the description's context ('list project folders/files') implies what the parameter represents. The description adds minimal meaning beyond 'this is an ID', so a baseline 3 is appropriate given low complexity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists project folders and files, using the specific verb 'List' and resource 'project folders/files'. While it distinguishes from other project-related tools like 'project.create_folder' and 'project.create_file', it could be more precise about whether it lists the root contents or recurses into subfolders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'binary.functions' for listing functions or 'session.list' for sessions. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open session) or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation (likely safe for most contexts), how matches are returned (streaming vs batched), performance implications for large ranges, or what happens when regex is enabled vs disabled. The brief description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 5 words. But it is so concise that it sacrifices information density—a tradeoff that leaves many required details missing. Could be longer if combined with param descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would lack critical information on parameter formats (start/end types), limit behavior, and return format to successfully invoke this tool without external schema inspection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It only mentions query and regex parameters ('regex optional'). Nothing about session_id, start, end (as int or string types), limit, or their semantics. For 6 parameters with 4 required, this is a major gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Find'), resource ('all text matches'), scope ('in range'), and optional feature ('regex optional'). It distinguishes from siblings like search.all_data (data matches) and binary.search_text (binary-specific), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for text searching with positional range, but provides no guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like search.next_text (single match), search.data, or binary.strings. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, whether the session is mutable, or what happens to the loaded binary. The agent is left uninformed about critical behavioral traits like read-only defaults or the effect of the `update_analysis` parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is too terse given the complexity of the tool (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema). It does not earn its brevity by covering all necessary information. A more informative description of similar length could exist, but the current one is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested object, no annotations, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It only covers the core purpose, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and behavior of most parameters, the return value (since no output schema), and how the session is managed. This is insufficient for reliable selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only addresses the required parameter `data_base64` by mentioning base64-encoded bytes. The other five parameters (`options`, `filename`, `read_only`, `deterministic`, `update_analysis`) are entirely undocumented. While some parameter names are self-explanatory, the `options` object is opaque, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Open a binary session') and the specific input method ('from base64-encoded bytes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like session.open (likely file-based) and session.open_existing (likely opening an already-loaded session). The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as session.open or session.open_existing. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer the appropriate context solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or prerequisites. The description only states 'Get task status' — it does not disclose whether the task refers to a long-running process, if it returns immediately or requires polling, or if it has rate limits. This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short at 3 words, which is concise but verging on under-informative. It wastes no words, but for such a brief description, the front-loading attribute is irrelevant. It earns points for brevity but loses a point for sacrificing clarity, as the tool name already implies the description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the system (many sibling tools involving tasks, analysis, sessions), this description is too minimal. There is no output schema, no mention of return values (e.g., string status, JSON object), and no context about what 'status' means (e.g., pending, running, completed). The agent cannot know how to use the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (the parameter 'task_id' has no description in the schema), so the description must compensate. Task_id is self-explanatory as it is a common identifier, but the description adds no additional context like expected format, source (e.g., from a previous tool call), or validation rules. Baseline is 3 due to only one parameter, but added value is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'get' clearly indicates a read operation, and 'task status' specifies the resource. However, given the context of sibling tools from a binary analysis platform, it competes with tools like 'task.analysis_update' and 'task.result', and the description does not distinguish itself from these. Still, it communicates a straightforward purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools like 'task.search_text', 'task.result', and 'task.cancel' suggest there are multiple task-related operations, but the description offers no criteria for selecting this one, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not specify if this is a read-only operation (expected), what side effects exist, or whether it requires certain permissions or state. For a listing tool, it fails to mention if it returns empty results or errors when no variables exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that fits on one line. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it may be slightly underspecified given the lack of context from annotations or schema, but that is penalized elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description does not cover return value format, errors, or preconditions. However, 'list' tools are generally low-complexity; the name and param names hint functionality. It is minimally adequate for a simple listing operation but leaves gaps about error scenarios and parameter formats.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'session_id' or 'function_start' parameters beyond their names. 'function_start' has two types (integer or string) with no hint about format; the description adds no value here. Baseline 3 due to 0% coverage, but fails to improve.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'user variable values for a function', making the purpose immediately understandable. Among siblings, uidf tools are rare; there's 'uidf.set_user_var_value' and 'uidf.clear_user_var_value' which are write operations, so this is naturally distinguished as the read counterpart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with related uidf tools like 'uidf.parse_possible_value' or note any prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session with a function). The agent has to infer context from the sibling lists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what the return format looks like, if there are performance implications for large result sets, or how pagination works via limit/offset. The description is too sparse to convey important behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at five words. It's front-loaded and to the point, but may be too brief, sacrificing clarity for brevity. Every word earns its place, but more context would be welcome.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and is part of a large sibling group with similar purposes, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain how results are ordered, how pagination works, what constitutes a 'code reference,' or how the address parameter's integer vs. string variant is used. More documentation is warranted for usability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the four parameters. It mentions 'address' in the description text, tying it to the tool's purpose, but provides no meaning for session_id, limit, or offset. However, limit/offset are generic pagination parameters that experienced users may infer, and session_id is a common context parameter in this tool suite. The description adds value for address but not the others, resulting in a baseline-adjusted 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds 'code references to an address,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like xref.code_refs_from (which would go the opposite direction) and xref.data_refs_to (which looks at data references, not code references). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like xref.code_refs_from, xref.data_refs_to, or search tools. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., the session must be open, the address must be valid) or context in which it is most useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only mentions 'list' and 'pagination' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works (e.g., ordering of blocks), what happens if the address is invalid, or performance characteristics. This leaves significant ambiguity for a binary analysis tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loades the purpose and pagination feature. While more detail could be added, the current form is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and high cognitive load from sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'basic blocks' are in this context, the behavior of pagination limits, or the structure of the response. A more thorough description is needed for effective tool selection and use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no parameter-level documentation. The description implies 'address' is the starting location and suggests pagination involves 'limit' and 'offset', but adds no detail on type constraints or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 because schema has numerous parameters, but the description could do more.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool lists basic blocks at a given address, which is specific and actionable. The inclusion of pagination signals a key feature. It is clear and distinct from siblings like 'function.basic_blocks' (which lists blocks for a function) and 'binary.functions' (which lists functions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing paginated basic block information at an address, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., function.basic_blocks) or when not to use it. No context on prerequisites or alternatives is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only says 'Find function by address' – it doesn't mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it can fail (e.g., address out of range), whether it requires a valid session, or what data the returned function includes (e.g., name, start/end address, type). For a lookup tool that could trigger expensive analysis, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose without any unnecessary words. It is perfectly sized for its function – no fluff, no repetition. Every word contributes to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage. The complexity is moderate, but the description is minimal. It doesn't explain the return value format (e.g., function name, address range, or object reference), nor does it address potential error conditions (e.g., address not mapped, session invalid). Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context to make the tool safely usable by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no descriptions for the two parameters ('address' and 'session_id'). The description does not detail these parameters either, but the parameter names and types are self-explanatory: 'session_id' obviously identifies a session, and 'address' is an integer or string representing a memory address. The description's lack of parameter elaboration is compensated by the clarity of the names and types, so this is acceptable but could be improved with examples of address formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find function by address' clearly states the tool's purpose: it looks up a function given an address. The verb 'Find' is specific, and the resource is 'function by address'. This is distinct from sibling tools like 'binary.functions' (list all functions) or 'binary.get_function_disassembly_at' (get disassembly of a function), so the purpose is well-defined and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'binary.functions_at' or 'binary.get_function_disassembly_at'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the binary must be loaded, the address must be valid) or edge cases (e.g., what if no function exists at the address). The absence of usage context leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool lists but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether it is a read-only operation. The agent has no indication of safety or impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with six words. It is extremely concise and front-loaded. However, it could include just a bit more detail without becoming verbose, such as clarifying what 'states' means.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It conveys the basic purpose, but lacks details about the format or components of the returned data (e.g., what fields are included in the listing). Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and description coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description adds meaning by specifying that the tool lists 'repositories and plugin states,' which explains what data the agent will receive, even though there are no parameters to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists plugin repositories and plugin states, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like plugin_repo.check_updates or plugin_repo.plugin_action, which could lead to confusion about when to use this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns data references to an address, which implies a read operation. However, it doesn't mention pagination (despite a limit parameter), what the response format looks like, whether it requires a specific session state, or any side effects. The description is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient and avoids fluff. However, it could be slightly longer to add value without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and operates in a complex binary analysis context (as evidenced by numerous sibling tools), the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the address format, the effect of the limit parameter, return structure, or prerequisites like having an open session. The tool's role within the larger cross-reference family is not clarified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter-level documentation. The address parameter's oneOf type (integer or string) and the limit parameter's meaning are left entirely unexplained. The session_id parameter is not mentioned at all. The description offers no semantics beyond what the raw schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Data references to an address' clearly indicates the tool retrieves cross-references pointing to a given address. The verb is implied (list/retrieve) and the resource (data references) is specific. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like xref.code_refs_to or xref.data_refs_from, though the naming convention helps differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it should be used when needing to find all data references targeting an address. But no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor are alternatives named. Context from sibling names suggests it's one of several cross-reference tools, but the description doesn't clarify when one would choose data_refs_to over code_refs_to or data_refs_from.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action ('List open sessions') without explaining what happens if no sessions are open, whether the result is a list of IDs, details, or something else, or any locking or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description minimally covers the tool's purpose. However, it lacks details about return format, what constitutes an 'open session', and whether the list is filtered or includes all sessions. It's adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description correctly adds no parameter information beyond the schema. There is nothing else to document about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List open sessions' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (open sessions). It distinguishes from siblings like session.open, session.close, session.mode which perform different actions on sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is to view currently open sessions, but does not explain when to use it versus other session tools like session.mode or session.list's potential sibling session.open_existing. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any traits such as input requirements (though there are none), output format, side effects, or permission needs. The agent learns only the intended action, not how it behaves or what to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 15-word sentence that includes the core action and key details. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Explain' and immediately specifies the scope. Every word serves a purpose, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate as a basic statement of purpose. However, it lacks any indication of the return value format (e.g., plain text, JSON) and only mentions two fields, leaving an agent uncertain about what exactly will be returned. A bit more detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information (none needed), but it does clarify what the tool does beyond the schema, fulfilling the expectation for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Explain MCP tool result fields', and specifies two concrete fields it covers ('structuredContent full payload, content[0].text summary'). This provides a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from its many sibling tools, which are focused on binary analysis, memory operations, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or prerequisites. It simply states the tool's function without contextualizing its place among the sibling tools. An agent would have no information about when to invoke this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states this is a read operation ('Get ...'), but there are no annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint or destructiveHint) provided. Thus the description carries the burden. It doesn't disclose whether the tool has side effects (likely not), what happens if the session_id is invalid, or the format of the returned mode. For a query with no annotations, this is minimal disclosure. It doesn't contradict any annotations, so no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence: 'Get session safety/determinism mode.' Every word is necessary, and there is no wasted text. It is clean and front-loaded. This is an example of ideal conciseness for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does in a straightforward manner. The only missing context is what the return value looks like (e.g., a string like 'safety' or 'determinism'), but since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap. For a simple query, this is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must add meaning to the single parameter 'session_id'. The description says 'Get session safety/determinism mode' which implies the session_id identifies which session's mode to retrieve, but it doesn't explicitly describe the parameter's purpose, format, or constraints (e.g., must be a valid open session). With only 1 parameter required, the baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but the schema already defines the parameter name and type, so the description adds minimal additional value. This is acceptable since the parameter name 'session_id' is self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get session safety/determinism mode.' clearly states the verb ('Get') and the resource ('session safety/determinism mode'), which is specific enough. Among sibling tools like 'session.set_mode', 'session.open', and 'session.list', it is clearly differentiated as a query for the current mode, not for listing, opening, or modifying sessions. However, it doesn't explain that this is likely a read-only operation or how the 'mode' relates to session behavior, which would slightly improve clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: call this when you need to know the current safety/determinism state of a session. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'session.set_mode' or 'session.list'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., session must be open) or exclusions (e.g., not applicable for certain session types). For a simple query tool with a single parameter, this is adequate but leaves an agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavioral traits. 'Health check' implies a read-only, safe operation, but it does not mention return value, latency, or potential side effects. For such a simple tool, the description is adequate but not proactive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two words. Every word is necessary. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. While more detail could be added, the brevity is appropriate for a trivial health check tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's minimal complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It fully informs the agent of the tool's function. No additional context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema covers everything. With 100% schema description coverage (no params to describe), the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Health check' clearly indicates the tool's purpose: to verify system availability. The name 'health.ping' reinforces this. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'plugin_repo.check_updates' which serve different functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident: it is a simple liveness check. The description does not clarify prerequisites or side effects, but given the zero-parameter nature, usage context is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a simple list operation, which implies read-only behavior, but does not elaborate on return format, side effects, or any constraints. The minimal description is adequate for a straightforward list but lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately clear. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter list tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not specify the output format (e.g., list of workflow names or objects). Since there is no output schema, the description could benefit from explaining what 'registered workflows' means or what the return value contains. This gap reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly indicates no inputs are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List registered workflows.' clearly specifies the verb (list) and resource (registered workflows). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workflow.describe, workflow.clone, etc., which operate on individual workflows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The agent can infer from sibling names (e.g., workflow.describe for details, workflow.clone for copying), but the description does not state when listing is appropriate or when to prefer other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states it returns version/install info, which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not mention any potential requirements, rate limits, or the exact structure of the returned data. For a zero-parameter info tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks richer context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of five words, free of redundancy or fluff. It delivers the essential message upfront, achieving maximum conciseness for a tool with minimal complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does—return version/install info—which is sufficient for parameter-less retrieval. No additional details are necessary to enable correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (no params to describe). Per baseline rules, this scores 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond the empty schema, and it correctly implies that the tool requires no input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns Binary Ninja version/install info. The verb 'Return' and resource 'Binary Ninja version/install info' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like binja.call, binja.eval, and health.ping, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is obvious given the tool name and sibling context, there is no guidance on scenarios where this tool is preferred over, say, health.ping or database.info. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![binary-ninja-headless-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrphrazer/binary-ninja-headless-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrphrazer/binary-ninja-headless-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![binary-ninja-headless-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrphrazer/binary-ninja-headless-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mrphrazer/binary-ninja-headless-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mrphrazer/binary-ninja-headless-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server