binja.info

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.