ida_decompile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions/IDA state, whether the decompiler must be licensed, or what happens on failure. Merely saying 'using Hex-Rays decompiler' hints at a dependency but gives no behavioral details.

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, concise sentence that states the tool's purpose without any superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but gives the core idea. However, it lacks important context such as prerequisites (e.g., IDA must be running, decompiler availability) and how the result is returned (e.g., as a string). Given the sibling tools and complexity of the domain, a bit more context would improve completeness, but it is not severely deficient.

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 already documents the 'address' parameter as 'Function address or name' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify accepted formats (e.g., hex, symbol) but the schema is sufficient.

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?

Clearly states the action: 'Decompile function to pseudocode' using the Hex-Rays decompiler. The verb 'decompile' and resource 'function' are specific, and the mention of 'pseudocode' distinguishes it from disassembly tools like ida_disassemble and from ida_get_pseudocode_all_functions which targets all functions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for a single function, while ida_get_pseudocode_all_functions exists for all functions, nor any preconditions like IDA being loaded or the function address being valid. The usage context is entirely implied.

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