file_analyze_pe

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses the tool's read-only nature by listing extraction and detection actions without any mention of side effects. However, it does not address potential limitations (e.g., file size, error handling for malformed PE files).

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 a single, focused paragraph of two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then lists capabilities efficiently, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently outlines what is extracted, but it does not mention the structure or format of the returned data. The parameter details and schema coverage help compensate, but a brief note on the return type 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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the tool description adds value by explaining the meaning of each detail_level value and noting that extract_strings 'can be verbose'. This provides context beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Perform static analysis') and resource ('Windows PE files'), and lists concrete actions (extracts headers, imports, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like api_analyze_imports or disk_parse_* which target different file types or analysis modes.

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 the tool is for static analysis of PE files but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., dynamic analysis or other file formats). No when-not or sibling comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool's name and listed capabilities.

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