ida_export_idb_info

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 does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or what the output format will be. 'Export' could imply file creation, but that is not clarified. Lacking these details, the agent cannot fully anticipate behavior.

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 crisp sentences. The first states the action and the specific data items, the second offers a usage suggestion. No wasted words; it front-loads 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 simple, no-parameter tool, the description lists all output fields and a usage scenario. It could mention the return format (e.g., JSON) or any preconditions (e.g., IDA database must be loaded), but these are not critical for selection and invocation. The description is adequate for its simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters, which would be unnecessary. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given the absence of parameters.

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 it exports a comprehensive IDA database summary and enumerates the exact fields included (file path, hashes, counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ida_functions or ida_segments that focus on specific aspects, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: 'Good for a session overview.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would strengthen the guidance. Still, the intended scenario is evident.

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