list_structs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a listing operation, implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, clarify access requirements, or describe any side effects. An AI agent would benefit from an explicit 'read-only' hint.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. Every part is essential and earns its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what is listed (structures/unions) and that it includes members. Given the sibling context, it sufficiently defines the tool's purpose.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, this yields a baseline of 4. The description adds value by noting that members are included in the output, which is not obvious from the empty input schema.

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 lists all defined structures/unions in the IDA database with their members. The verb 'list' and resource 'structures/unions' are specific, and the inclusion of 'with their members' adds detail. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_enums or list_strings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_enums, list_functions). No usage context, prerequisites, or scenarios are mentioned. The description only states the action without advising the agent on selection criteria.

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