edb_get_binary_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so safety profile is clear. The description adds modest behavioral context (what fields are shown, return type) but does not disclose any traits beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.

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?

Description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a return line. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Well front-loaded with the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless tool with good annotations and an output schema (not shown but present), the description adequately covers purpose and contents. It could mention more about prerequisites (e.g., binary must be loaded) but that is implied by 'loaded binary file'. Overall complete for its simplicity.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline of 4 applies; description adds no param info, but none is needed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets detailed info about the loaded binary file, listing specific aspects (ELF header, architecture, entry point, section layout). It also identifies as equivalent to EDB's BinaryInfo plugin, distinguishing from siblings like edb_get_arch_info or edb_get_section_info.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like edb_get_arch_info, edb_get_entry_point, or edb_get_section_info. The description merely states it's equivalent to a plugin, but does not clarify when this comprehensive view is preferred over more focused tools.

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