maldoc_analyze

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: 'Read-only file analysis', 'Does NOT execute any payloads', and error conditions ('Requires oledump.py and olevba'). It also describes the multi-step analysis pipeline, giving good insight into tool behavior beyond basic function.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with numbered analysis steps, return format specification, side effects, and error conditions. Each section adds value, though the numbered steps could be slightly more concise.

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 complex analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: analysis pipeline details, return format specification, side effects, and prerequisites. It adequately compensates for the lack of structured metadata, though could potentially elaborate more on output interpretation.

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 100% with the single parameter 'file_path' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 performs 'Full malware document analysis pipeline' with specific steps (oledump.py, olevba, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'maldoc_extract_macros' which appears to be a subset function. It specifies verb ('analyze') and resource ('malware document').

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 implies usage context through the analysis steps and mentions 'Read-only file analysis' and 'Does NOT execute any payloads', providing clear operational boundaries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'maldoc_extract_macros' or other security analysis tools.

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