Storm Explain

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses that this is a composite of five distinct operations, which tells the agent it does more work than a single-step sibling. It does not disclose cost, latency, or whether the stages can be selectively disabled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every token is load-bearing. The terseness is intentional and the compound nature is conveyed efficiently, though it could carry one more clause without becoming bloated.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is significant: the meaning of all three parameters, what 'target' accepts, and when to prefer this over the five individual stage tools. For an aggregating tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unresolved.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds nothing about target, build, or max_bytes. An agent gets no guidance on whether 'target' is a binary path, symbol, or address, what 'build' selects, or what max_bytes bounds. With three undocumented parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (an explanation of a target) and enumerates the constituent operations (resolve, decompile, symbolize, xrefs, maps), which maps onto the sibling tools storm_resolve, storm_decomp, storm_symbolize, storm_xrefs and storm_map. That implicitly distinguishes it as the aggregating 'one-call' sibling. However, it never states what 'target' is or what the explanation produces, so it falls short of a fully self-contained purpose statement.

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?

'One-call explanation' implies the use case is a convenient combined pass, and the stage names hint at the individual siblings as alternatives. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of cost or redundancy versus calling storm_resolve/storm_decomp individually, and no prerequisite information. Usage is only implied.

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