detect_target

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it reads the PE import table, includes delay-loaded imports, and explicitly does not launch the executable. This effectively tells the agent what side effects will not occur and what special case is handled.

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 three focused sentences, each earning its place: the first summarizes scope, the second explains the mechanism and non-side-effect, and the third highlights a relevant edge case. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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?

With a trivial one-parameter schema, strong annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavioral context, including the static-analysis mechanism and the delay-loaded import nuance. It could mention expected input path format or prerequisites, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'game_exe' parameter. The phrase 'Inspect a game executable' identifies what the parameter refers to, but it does not specify whether the value should be a full path, filename, or how to locate it. For a one-parameter tool this is workable, but the semantics are not fully specified.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('game executable'), and concretely names the outputs: bitness, graphics API, and trace method. It also answers the likely user question ('is this D3D8 or D3D9, and is it 32-bit'), making the tool's role unambiguous among the many tracing and replay siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to inspect an executable statically 'without launching anything.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the framing strongly implies this is the pre-trace inspection step, which is sufficient for a tool with this narrow scope.

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