Make Signature For Function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it is cut off before disclosing anything behavioral. It does not say what happens on failure to resolve an address, how uniqueness is achieved, whether signatures are stored or returned, or what the default format/wildcard behavior implies for downstream use.

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 short but not concise: it terminates mid-sentence ('Resolves each'), leaving an incomplete fragment that wastes the only slot available for behavioral or usage detail. Brevity here reflects truncation, not disciplined editing.

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 should explain return shape, uniqueness guarantees, and format trade-offs. Instead it is truncated after two clauses, so an agent cannot tell what a successful call produces or how the format options differ.

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%, with each of the six parameters documented inline including examples, defaults, and the enum-like format values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 first clause states a specific verb and resource ('Create unique byte signatures for function entry points'), which separates it from make_signature and make_signature_for_range. However, the second sentence ('Resolves each') is truncated mid-thought, so the scope statement is never completed.

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 when-to-use guidance and no reference to the obvious alternatives in the sibling list (make_signature, make_signature_for_range), even though an agent must choose between three signature-making tools. The truncated sentence may have been intended to provide this, but as delivered nothing routes the agent.

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