run_ida_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Trigger... by name' with no mention of side effects, destructiveness, return value, error handling, or required permissions. For a tool that executes an action (potentially destructive), this is a significant gap. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name itself.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and includes a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise while still being informative.

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 one parameter, an output schema (not shown), and many siblings, the description covers purpose and how to get action names. However, it omits any mention of the tool's return value or side effects. Since an output schema exists, the description is not required to detail return values, but the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., whether the action modifies the database) leaves a completeness gap. Adequate but not thorough.

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 has 0% coverage (no description for action_name), but the description compensates well by providing concrete examples ('e.g. ‘ToggleBnds’, ‘MakeCode’') and clarifying that the parameter is the name of a registered UI action. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare 'Action Name' label, though it could specify case sensitivity or format.

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 verb ('Trigger') and resource ('registered IDA UI action'), provides concrete examples ('ToggleBnds', 'MakeCode'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing list_ida_actions as a companion tool to discover available actions. This makes the purpose unambiguous and fully differentiated.

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 advises using list_ida_actions to see available actions, which is a helpful usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this generic tool over dedicated sibling tools like make_code or make_data, nor does it mention any 'when not to use' scenarios. The guidance is present but minimal, earning a 3.

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