ida_call_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('nested tree') and the recursion depth behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention how recursive cycles are handled or warn about potentially large outputs. The schema provides depth hints, but the description itself could add more caveats.

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 concise: two sentences, the first front-loaded with the primary action, the second adding usage context. No unnecessary wording. The minor typo ('w' instead of 'the') is a negligible flaw in an otherwise compact and effective description.

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 has only two parameters, both documented in the schema, and no output schema. The description explains the return concept ('nested tree') and the use case, but lacks details on the exact tree structure (e.g., whether nodes are addresses or names) and how to interpret depth limits or potential performance issues. For a tool without an output schema, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 already fully describes both parameters: 'address' as 'Root function address or name' and 'depth' with default and max notes. The description only restates 'from a function' and 'up to `depth` levels', adding no new semantic information. With 100% schema coverage, 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 the action: 'Build a recursive call tree from a function up to `depth` levels.' It specifies the resource (a function) and the output (a nested tree of called functions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ida_decompile or ida_xrefs_from, which have different purposes. The minor typo 'w execution flow' does not obscure the intent.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Useful for understanding execution flow or finding the main logic.' This tells an agent when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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