ida_headless_scan

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions 're-analyze' (implying idempotent?) and timeouts, but lacks details on whether it modifies any state, required permissions, or potential side effects like overwriting existing data.

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 concise with a clear one-line purpose and a structured Args list. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without repetition.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description doesn't clarify the exact JSON structure or return behavior. Missing details on error handling, IDA availability, and execution mode. For a complex external-process tool, more context would improve completeness.

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 titles provide parameter names but no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds brief explanations and defaults for all four parameters, which is adequate but not detailed. For example, binary_path is described as 'Binary to analyze, default current repo slpd', but no format or constraint info.

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 re-analyzes an ELF binary using IDA headless and outputs JSON results. It distinguishes from sibling IDA tools like ida_find_functions and ida_get_pseudocode by focusing on full offline analysis with output to a file.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other IDA tools). The description only lists parameters without clarifying use cases or prerequisites.

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