nds_discover_functions

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

The description adds non-obvious behavioral context by stating that the call graph is bounded and proven only by program-entry or deterministic resolved direct-call evidence. This informs the agent about the tool's conservative and deterministic nature. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose side effects, resource usage, or return value semantics.

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 sentence with no filler words, front-loading the central verb and object. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though the technical jargon ('deterministic resolved direct-call evidence') makes it dense and slightly less accessible.

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 15 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not explain how to configure scope or seeds, what the returned call graph looks like, or what budget limits affect. The complex nature of the tool demands significantly more context.

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%, and the description names none of the 15 parameters. The agent is left to infer the meaning of 'rom', 'processor', 'scope', 'seeds', and every 'max*' budget parameter from schema types and defaults alone, with no compensatory explanation in the description.

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 a specific action ('Discover a bounded call graph') with a well-defined resource ('Nintendo DS ARM/Thumb function entries') and evidence criteria. It is distinct enough to imply uniqueness among siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related analysis tools like nds_analyze_control_flow or nds_analyze_function.

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. The description explains what it does but not the situations that would favor this tool over nds_analyze_function, nds_list_references, or nds_ghidra_list_calls. No exclusions or alternative mentions are provided.

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