ida_struct

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation but does not state what happens if the struct is not found, whether any resolution/preprocessing is performed, or the exact response format beyond listing fields. This is a minimal but not comprehensive disclosure.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a parenthetical listing the returned data. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (name, members, offsets, sizes). The input schema handles parameter documentation, and no additional behavioral context is needed for this straightforward read operation.

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 already fully documents the 'name' parameter with a clear description and examples ('_EPROCESS', 'HEAP'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond restating that the name refers to a struct, so it provides no value beyond the schema's baseline coverage.

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: 'Get struct definition from IDA's type library' with specific details on the returned content (name, members, offsets, sizes). This uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like ida_get_type by focusing specifically on struct definitions.

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 usage for retrieving struct definitions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or point to other tools like ida_get_type for non-struct types, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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