Get Basic Blocks

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires prior analysis / wait_for_analysis, whether it only accepts function addresses (vs any address), or how failures surface. 'With control flow information' hints at the payload but does not describe it.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the action. It is not padded, though it is arguably too terse to be truly well-structured for a complex reverse-engineering operation.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain prerequisites and return shape. It notes only that control flow information is included, leaving the agent without the context needed to know when the call is valid or what a basic block result contains.

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 100%, so the schema already documents addr, timeout, and instance_id clearly; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format (e.g., accepting both integer and string addresses) beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a verb (get) and resource (basic blocks) plus a qualifier (control flow information), so the core action is legible. However, it never says whose basic blocks or in what domain, and gives no differentiation from the many overlapping disassembly/analysis siblings like get_callees, disasm, or linear_disasm. The schema's addr description ('Function address or name') carries the missing scoping context that the description omits.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_callees, get_callers, disasm, or linear_disasm, nor any prerequisites (e.g., analysis completing). Usage is at best implied by the name.

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