detect_packing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses checks and return type but does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 succinct—two sentences that convey core functionality, checks, and output. No unnecessary words or repetition. Well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks details on the structure of the 'list of indicators' and does not mention potential limitations or reliability factors. More specific output description would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds useful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that the 'module' parameter defaults to the main executable if omitted. This helps the agent understand default behavior.

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 analyzes for packing/obfuscation, lists specific checks (entropy, section anomalies, etc.), and describes output (confidence score and indicators). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_section_anomalies' by being a broader analysis.

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 it's for initial packing detection, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'analyze_suspicious_apis' or 'check_section_anomalies'. No 'when-not' guidance is provided.

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