list_functions

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool lists functions and optionally filters by name. It does not disclose whether the listing returns function addresses, sizes, or other details, nor does it mention performance implications for large binaries or whether it requires any analysis state (e.g., after auto-analysis). The description is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks depth for critical behaviors.

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: two sentences, zero wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('List all functions in the binary') and adds the optional filter as a secondary detail. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, simple list operation) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably describes the return format), the description is adequate for a basic scanning tool. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., empty list if no functions match, behavior with invalid filter characters) and does not mention whether results include addresses or other metadata. For a tool with only one parameter and no annotations, the description could be slightly more detailed.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no documentation for the single 'filter' parameter. The description compensates by clearly explaining the filter usage: 'a filter string to match function names (case-insensitive)'. This adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema definition, telling the agent how the parameter affects behavior.

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 tool's purpose: listing all functions in the binary. It also mentions an optional filter parameter for case-insensitive matching of function names, which adds specificity. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'get_function_info' or 'get_function_callers', which might be confused for similar listing operations.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to list functions) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools. With many sibling tools for specific function operations (e.g., 'decompile_function', 'disassemble_function', 'get_function_callers'), the description should clarify that this is a general listing tool, not for detailed inspection or filtering by relationships.

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