Make Signature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to meet it. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only analysis operation, what happens on timeout or when max_length is exceeded, or how results are returned. The truncated final clause ('Generates the shortest') signals an important behavioral property that is never actually stated.

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 text is brief but not concise — it is truncated mid-sentence ('Generates the shortest'), which is a structural defect rather than economy. A definition whose second sentence has no object or completion leaves the reader with an unfinished claim.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate: it is truncated and explains neither the return value nor the behavior of timeout, max_length, or the wildcard/format options that materially change the output. Almost nothing beyond the tool name is conveyed.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema, including the format enum-like values and the max_length/wildcard_operands flags. The description adds essentially nothing beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create unique byte signatures for addresses'), and the 'for addresses' scope implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like make_signature_for_function and make_signature_for_range. However the sentence is cut off mid-thought ('Generates the shortest'), leaving the core promise of the tool unfinished, which prevents a 5.

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 instead of make_signature_for_function, make_signature_for_range, or find_xref_signatures — all close siblings in the same signature-generation family. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the tool name alone.

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