nds_analyze_function

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals important behavioral details: it distinguishes complete negative from inconclusive proof and only analyzes the CFG once proof succeeds. However, it does not mention read-only nature, required inputs, or error handling, so some gaps remain.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and packs multiple constraints without filler. It is concise but slightly overloaded with three clauses, making it efficient yet dense.

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 tool with 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description offers only a high-level purpose and one behavioral nuance. It does not specify return structure, failure modes, or how proofScope and seeds interact, leaving significant gaps for agent invocation.

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. It vaguely references evidence ('program-entry or deterministic direct-call evidence') and ARM/Thumb mode, but does not explain the many proof/cfg limits (maxCfg*, maxProof*) or the proofScope parameter. With 17 parameters, the description adds only minimal semantic value.

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 starts with 'Prove one Nintendo DS ARM/Thumb function entry', clearly stating the action and resource. It also specifies meaningful outcome distinctions (complete negative vs. inconclusive) and a bounded CFG analysis condition, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like nds_disassemble_range or nds_analyze_control_flow.

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 usage prerequisites ('from program-entry or deterministic direct-call evidence') and conditional behavior ('analyze its bounded CFG only when proven'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as nds_discover_functions or nds_analyze_control_flow. The guidance is implied rather than clearly directed.

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