ida_analyze_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 of behavioral disclosure. It lists the kinds of analysis performed (calls, string refs, xrefs, decompile), which gives useful context, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it may be resource-intensive, or what the response format will be.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful usage hint. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and scannable.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one well-documented parameter, and the description conveys its role. However, since there is no output schema, the description would benefit from indicating what the returned analysis contains or how it is structured. It is adequate for selection but not fully informative for invocation.

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% and the parameter 'address' is described as 'Function address or name,' which is semantically sufficient. The description adds no extra parameter details, but the schema already provides the needed information, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states 'Deep function analysis' and enumerates specific outputs: 'calls, string refs, xrefs, decompile.' This distinguishes it from narrower siblings like ida_call_tree, ida_find_string_refs, and ida_decompile, making its role as a consolidated starting point clear.

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 'Best starting point' provides direct guidance on when to use this tool: as an initial deep dive into a function. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and appropriate.

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