get_function_hash

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 discloses the notion of hashing raw bytes and lists supported algorithms, but does not mention performance implications, whether the function must be in the current binary, or if errors occur for invalid identifiers. With an output schema present, some behavioral aspects may be covered there, but the description lacks details like 'This tool reads raw bytes and computes a hash; it does not modify the database.'

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loads the core action, and every sentence provides necessary information: what it does and why it is useful. No wasted 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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, straightforward hashing operation) and that an output schema exists which likely explains the return format, the description is mostly adequate. However, it could briefly note that identifier must reference a known function in the database, which is not obvious from the description alone. The sibling list includes many mutation tools, so this read-only tool's description could be slightly more explicit about it being a read-only operation.

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 explain parameter meanings. The description lists algorithms for the algorithm parameter (md5, sha1, sha256) and implies that identifier refers to a function. While it does not explicitly describe identifier as a function name or address, the context and sibling tool names make this clear. It adds value by specifying the valid algorithm values.

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 ('Calculate') and resource ('hash of a function's raw bytes'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It also lists the supported algorithms, making the scope precise and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_bytes or decompile_function.

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 mentions it is 'Useful for identifying identical/similar functions across binaries,' which implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_bytes or decompile_function. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites is provided.

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