Program info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds some value by enumerating exactly what information is available, but it does not describe the return shape or behavior when no program is currently open.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the scope ('currently open') and then lists the exact informational payload, so every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool, the description provides the essential facts needed to decide whether to call it. It is slightly thin on expected return formatting or behavior when no program is open, but those are minor given the simplicity and the safety annotations.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the empty input schema fully covers the parameter surface. The description's mention of the 'currently open' program provides the only relevant context needed, which is appropriate here.

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 identifies the resource as the currently open program and lists the specific details returned: format, architecture, and function count. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly distinguish itself from the sibling tools beyond the implied 'currently open' scope.

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 phrase 'currently open' gives useful context that this tool applies after a binary is loaded, and the sibling list includes open_binary as a likely alternative. Still, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus others, leaving the routing mostly implied.

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