api_detect_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It correctly indicates the tool reads PE imports and returns pattern matches with IDs and risk levels, but does not mention error handling for non-PE files, permission requirements, or whether it makes network calls.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately states what the tool returns.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, input, and output types. It could be improved by mentioning error conditions or prerequisites, but is largely complete.

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?

The only parameter 'file_path' is fully described in the schema ('Path to PE file to analyze'), and the tool description reinforces that it expects a PE file. Since schema coverage is 100%, additional semantic value from the description is minimal, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 detects injection, evasion, and persistence API patterns from PE imports, and specifies outputs (MITRE ATT&CK IDs and risk levels). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'api_analyze_imports' which likely does broader import 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 usage for analyzing PE files for specific suspicious API patterns, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios where it should not be used or mention alternatives like 'api_analyze_imports' for general analysis.

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