get_function_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and input format, omitting details about error handling, whether the function must already be analyzed, or that the operation is read-only. The agent is left without safety or side-effect information.

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, immediately stating the purpose and then the parameter format. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 an output schema, so return values need no explanation. However, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this tool over similar function-analysis siblings. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema provides only a vague 'identifier' string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining that it accepts a function name or hex address, adding essential semantic meaning that the schema lacks.

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 ('Get detailed information about a function') and specifies the input format ('a function name or hex address'). This distinguishes it from siblings like decompile_function and disassemble_function, which transform code rather than retrieve metadata.

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 implies usage when function information is needed, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as get_function_callers or list_functions, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The input guidance is present but selection context is only implied.

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