ida_apply_signature

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 states what the tool does, but does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether it modifies the IDA database, overwrites existing names, requires prior analysis, or is reversible. For a tool that applies signatures, this is a significant transparency 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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains zero redundant words. It is concise and well-structured for the tool's simple purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks behavioral transparency (side effects, prerequisites) which would make it more complete, especially since no annotations exist to compensate.

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 input schema has one parameter (sig_file) with full schema coverage (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning by specifying 'FLIRT' before '.sig', which slightly clarifies the expected file type, but it does not add significant semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Apply') and a specific resource ('FLIRT .sig signature file'), and clearly states the outcome ('auto-identify library functions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other IDA operations, such as ida_make_function or ida_set_type.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when you have a FLIRT .sig file to apply), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools. Given the specialized nature and no obvious sibling overlap, the context is implied but not fully explicit.

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