get_file_behaviour_summary

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are merged across multiple sandboxes and lists returned data types. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only summary tool, the disclosure is sufficient.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently lists what the summary includes.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values including processes, files, registry, network activity, MITRE ATT&CK techniques, IDS alerts, and signature matches. It also clarifies the merged nature of the data.

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 100% with a clear description of the hash parameter. The description adds context that the hash can be MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256, which is consistent with the schema pattern. This meets the baseline for high-coverage 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 gets a consolidated sandbox behaviour summary for a file, listing specific data categories like processes, files, registry, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file_report by emphasizing the merged, comprehensive view.

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 explicitly states it is 'far more useful than iterating individual behaviour reports,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool over siblings that return individual reports.

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