edb_get_arch_info

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it shows architecture information but does not introduce new behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover. It adequately reinforces the safe nature.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and provide a reference. Every word serves a purpose, and no extraneous information is included.

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 has no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the main purpose. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., the tool requires an active debugged process) and does not state whether it can be called at any time. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 no parameters (schema coverage 100% vacuously). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline score for 0 parameters is 4. The description briefly mentions what is retrieved, which aligns with the empty input schema.

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 retrieves architecture information about the debugged process and binary, listing specific details like CPU architecture and binary type. The name itself is specific, and the description distinguishes it from other info tools like edb_get_binary_info by focusing on architecture.

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 says 'Equivalent to EDB's BinaryInfo plugin,' which provides a reference but does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites, though the simple parameterless nature implies straightforward use.

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