ida_find_functions

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the core purpose. It lacks information on side effects (e.g., read-only), required permissions, error handling, or how results are returned. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and param descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the role of 'scan_json', the default limit, or what happens on no match. The output schema may exist but is not referenced.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema). The description does not explain any parameter—it does not mention 'pattern', 'limit', or 'scan_json'. Thus, it adds no value beyond the schema structure.

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 specifies the tool's action: 'find functions by function name regex/substring in IDA scan results'. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from sibling tools like ida_headless_scan (which runs scans) and ida_get_pseudocode (which decompiles).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a prior scan) nor exclusions compared to siblings like ida_get_xrefs or ida_headless_scan.

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