produce_c

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key requirement of Hex-Rays, which is critical behavioral context. However, it does not mention if the tool is read-only, if it modifies the database, what happens on failure, or if there are side effects. The lack of annotations makes the description partially sufficient but incomplete.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It includes the essential condition (Hex-Rays requirement) without excess. However, it could be slightly more structured or include a brief usage note without becoming verbose.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is mostly adequate but lacks context on what 'clean C pseudocode' means versus decompiler output, and how the output schema relates to the generated code. The presence of a decompile_function sibling suggests overlap, and the description doesn't clarify the distinction, leaving the agent unsure when to choose this tool.

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 compensate for the single parameter 'identifier'. The description only says 'for a function', implying the identifier is a function name or address, but does not explain the format (name vs address, which base, etc.). It adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema provides (type string). A bit more detail on the expected format would raise the score.

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 'produce' and the resource 'clean C pseudocode for a function'. It also specifies the output format is suitable for copy-paste or file export, and mentions the requirement of Hex-Rays. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decompile_function and disassemble_function, though the exact difference from decompile_function could be more explicit.

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 some usage guidance by stating the tool is for producing 'clean' C pseudocode and requires Hex-Rays. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus decompile_function or produce_asm, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The context of sibling tools implies alternatives but no direct comparison is given.

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