nds_ghidra_inspect_function

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 two key behaviors: read-only operation and auto-analysis disabled, which is useful context. However, it does not explain what happens if the project is not current, what 'function metadata' includes, or potential error conditions, so it is only moderately transparent.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value (read-only, auto-analysis disabled, canonical address, SHA-scoped project). No redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite being a relatively simple read tool, the description lacks critical details for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not describe what the returned metadata looks like, how parameters map to the schema, or how to handle the overlayId parameter. The description covers purpose and safety but not operability, making it incomplete.

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, but it only alludes to runtimeAddress ('at one canonical NDS runtime address') and the project context ('already-current SHA-scoped project') without explicitly explaining each parameter. It does not clarify rom, processor, or the oddly-referenced overlayId, leaving significant gaps for parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('Ghidra-derived function metadata'), and a precise scope ('at one canonical NDS runtime address from an already-current SHA-scoped project'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nds_ghidra_decompile_function (which decompiles) or nds_ghidra_list_calls (which lists calls).

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 context: it reads function metadata from a current project and explicitly states it runs read-only with auto-analysis disabled, which hints at when it is safe to use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use nds_ghidra_decompile_function for code'), so guidance is more implied than explicit.

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