file_analyze_pe

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses static analysis nature, lists extractions (headers, imports, exports, sections, hashes), mentions packer/suspicious indicator detection, and warns that string extraction can be verbose. It does not mention side effects, which are minimal for a read-only tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the tool's capabilities well, including a caution about verbose string extraction and an explanation of detail levels. It does not describe the return format, but the description implies the extracted 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 good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds an overview of what the tool does but does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs static analysis on Windows PE files (EXE/DLL/SYS) and lists specific capabilities: headers, imports, exports, sections, hashes, and packer detection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with other file types or different analysis (e.g., disk_parse_mft, browser_get_history).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Among many siblings, there is no mention of context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without assistance.

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