analyze_function

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists concrete features (disassembly, xrefs, API calls, etc.) which communicates what the tool does, but it does not state whether it is read-only, the typical latency, or any side effects. The analysis nature implies non-destructive behavior, but this is not explicit, especially given the presence of mutation tools in the sibling set.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs the tool's purpose and capabilities into a compact list. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere) and the sibling tools are numerous, the description provides sufficient context for selection. It enumerates the key analysis dimensions without overspecifying. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly say it's an IDA-based tool, but the sibling list makes that inferable.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the parameter details, including the hex prefix warning and default to RIP, so the description itself adds no extra parameter meaning. This matches the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 description clearly states a specific action ('Deep function analysis') and enumerates the exact scope: disassembly, xrefs in/out, API calls, string refs, and crypto indicators. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ida_xrefs_to or ida_find_crypto, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Deep function analysis' implies when to use it (when a comprehensive overview of a function is needed), but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over more specialized tools like ida_xrefs_to or ida_disassemble. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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