Set Op Type

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, yet it says nothing about the mutation (does it write the IDB, is it reversible, does it need a database open, what happens on invalid address). It only discloses the enum of type values. This is thin for a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste; the operation and its allowed values appear immediately. Slightly terse, but every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits who/what constraints an agent needs: whether the address must point at a real operand, the effect on the database, and the meaning of the loosely-typed items objects. It leaves the agent under-informed about consequences of the call.

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 items, timeout, and instance_id. The description repeats the type enum that the schema already lists and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Set') and a specific resource ('the display type of an instruction operand') and enumerates the valid rendering modes. An agent can tell it changes operand formatting in a disassembly context, though it does not distinguish itself from adjacent data/formatting tools like make_data or convert_number.

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?

The description never says when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite (a loaded instance, a selected operand, whether the instruction must already be disassembled). Usage is only weakly implied by 'instruction operand'.

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