get_local_variables

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the dependency on Hex-Rays and the input format, but does not explain what happens if the function is not decompiled, whether the output is read-only, or what the return structure looks like. With a richer description, this could be higher.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides usage constraints. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could potentially include a note about the return type without sacrificing conciseness.

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 that there is an output schema (which presumably documents the return structure), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks guidance on error cases (e.g., if Hex-Rays is missing or the identifier is invalid) and does not describe the behavior for non-decompiled functions. This is adequate but with gaps.

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 schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description is the sole source for understanding the single parameter 'identifier'. The description adds significant meaning: 'Pass function name or address', clarifying that the string can represent either form, which goes beyond the schema's type-only information.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'local variables and arguments of a decompiled function'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_global_variables', 'get_function_info', or 'get_stack_frame' by specifying it focuses on local scope within a decompiled 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 provides clear context: it requires Hex-Rays and accepts either a function name or address. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., if Hex-Rays is unavailable) or contrast with alternatives like 'get_stack_frame' or 'get_global_variables', which slightly lowers the score.

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