Make Signature For Range

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 it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the operation is read-only, what the output signature looks like, how wildcards affect output, or any timeout/instance behavior. The truncation compounds the gap.

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 fragment that terminates mid-parenthetical, so it is not merely terse but structurally broken. There is no way to read the full intent, which is worse than a short-but-complete sentence.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum explain what is produced and when to prefer it. Instead it is cut off, leaving the return artifact (signature bytes/string) and the relationship to sibling signature tools unexplained.

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%, including the format enum-like options, exclusive-end semantics, and the wildcard_operands default, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case.

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+resource: 'Create a byte signature for a specific address range.' This clearly distinguishes it from make_signature and make_signature_for_function, which target a wider scope or a function. However, the sentence is truncated mid-clause ('(e.g. a selected'), leaving the purpose statement incomplete.

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 indication of when to use this over make_signature, make_signature_for_function, or find_xref_signatures. The dangling '(e.g. a selected' hints at a selection workflow but never completes the thought, so no usable guidance is conveyed.

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