ida_make_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., modifying the IDB), failure conditions, or any prerequisites like IDA being open. The term 'force-create' hints at assertiveness but lacks detail.

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 focused sentence that immediately states the action and a key use case. There is no wordiness or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It gives the purpose and a use case, but missing behavioral details (like potential DB mutation or side effects) and no mention of return values or errors makes it minimally viable rather than 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% because the 'address' parameter has a description. The description only reinforces 'address' without adding new meaning (e.g., format expectations, alignment, or address types). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('force-create') and resource ('function at an address'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ida_analyze_function or ida_decompile. The parenthetical 'useful for undefined code regions' adds practical context without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'useful for undefined code regions' provides clear context on when to use the tool, implying it is appropriate when IDA has not recognized a function. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the 'exclusions' part of a full 5.

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