define_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto-detection of the function boundary when end_address is empty, which is helpful, but it omits important details such as whether this operation overwrites existing code/data, whether it can fail, or what the return value looks like. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 covering the primary action and a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place—no fluff or repetition. The critical information about auto-detection is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters (1 required), an output schema, and no nested objects. The description explains the tool's purpose and the key parameter behavior, but lacks info on return value semantics and error cases. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the effect of an empty end_address (auto-detection), which adds meaning beyond the schema's field names and default. However, it does not explain the format or constraints of the address strings (e.g., hex, decimal, or expression), which would improve utility.

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 the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'function at a given address range', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'undefine_function' or 'rename_function'. It explains the auto-detection behavior for the end address, which adds clarity beyond the name.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'make_code' or 'disassemble_range', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., that the range must be code already). The usage context is only implied by the tool name and siblings.

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