ida_diff_functions

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 what the comparison includes (disasm, instruction count, size delta) and the intended use case. While it doesn't explicitly state side effects or error behavior, the read-only nature of 'compare' is implied, and the added output details are valuable.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outputs, followed by a practical application. Every word earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficient for the tool's simple scope. It communicates the purpose, the inputs, and the nature of the result. It doesn't cover edge cases (e.g., invalid addresses), but those are common to IDA tools and not critical for a compare utility.

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% ('Address or name of the first/second function'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond confirming the input are functions, which is already clear from 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Compare two functions side-by-side' and specifies the comparison dimensions ('disasm, instruction count, size delta'). This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from other analysis tools in the sibling list, such as ida_disassemble or ida_analyze_function.

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 clear usage context: 'Useful for spotting obfuscation differences or comparing similar routines.' This tells the agent when to apply the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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