ida_segments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately portrays a read-only listing operation and specifies the included fields, but it does not mention potential edge cases like empty results or error behavior. For a simple parameterless query, this is sufficient and adds clear value over the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose and output, making it an example of concise and effective writing.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description provides essential information: the resource (segments), scope (all), and output content (addresses and permissions). This is sufficient to understand what the tool returns and when to invoke it, meeting the needs of an agent without further elaboration.

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, as confirmed by the empty input schema. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for parameter semantics is 4 when no parameters exist, so no additional information is needed.

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 'List' and identifies the resource 'binary segments' with concrete examples (.text, .data, .rdata) and output fields (addresses, permissions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling IDA tools like ida_names or ida_entry_points, none of which focus on segment enumeration.

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 the tool is for retrieving segment information when needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on exclusions or relationships to sibling tools, leaving usage context to be inferred from the description alone.

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