ida_functions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-oriented behavior of listing functions and the optional pagination/filtering, but does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating or describe the return format or potential error conditions. This is acceptable but minimal.

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 clear sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then mentioning key supported features. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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, three-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage, the description is sufficient for the agent to understand what it does and how to use it. It doesn't explain return value formatting, but the purpose is obvious. Slight improvement could be made by noting typical use cases or relationship to siblings.

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 fully documents all three parameters (limit, offset, pattern) with descriptions and defaults, so the high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'name filtering' aligns with the pattern parameter but adds no new semantic detail 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 clearly states the tool lists functions in the binary, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ida_disassemble or ida_decompile by focusing on enumeration, and mentions pagination and filtering.

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 implies a listing/filtering use case but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other IDA listing tools such as ida_names or ida_entry_points, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria. There is no alternative guidance, only an implied purpose.

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