apply_callee_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., database modification, reversibility), error conditions, or required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 wasted words. The main action is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the operation and providing the use case.

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 tool that modifies the database with two required parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., cursor on a call instruction), return value behavior (output schema exists but is unexplained), or edge cases. Lacks completeness for effective autonomous use.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what the 'address' or 'prototype' parameters mean or their expected formats (e.g., is address a hex string? Is prototype a C declaration?). The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.

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 action ('Apply a type signature'), specifies the target resource ('a call site (callee)'), and provides a specific use case ('when the function pointer type is unknown at a call instruction'). This differentiates it from siblings like 'set_function_type' which target functions, not call sites.

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 includes a 'Useful when' clause that denotes a specific context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for direct calls) or mention alternatives such as 'set_function_type' or 'set_type', leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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