mco_compare_functions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently explains that the tool compares instruction sequences, calculates a similarity percentage, and shows added/removed operations. This is substantive behavioral context, though it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or prerequisites, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core action and outputs, and the second provides a relevant use case. There is no redundancy or wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple (two hex addresses, no output schema), and the description adequately covers the behavior and expected return content (similarity percentage, added/removed operations). It also provides a real-world scenario. It lacks explicit details about error handling or prerequisites, but is sufficiently complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'address_a' and 'address_b' have descriptions: 'Hex address of first/second function'), so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value by framing the parameters as functions to diff, but it does not add format or syntax details 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Binary diff'), resource ('two functions'), and context ('in IDA Pro'), and lists concrete outputs (similarity percentage, added/removed operations). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'ida_diff_functions', which may serve a similar purpose, so it misses the sibling differentiation required for a 5.

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 provides clear usage context by stating 'Useful for patch diffing between clean and infected binaries,' which tells the agent when to apply the tool. It does not mention alternatives or explicit exclusions, so it falls short of the 'when/when-not/alternatives' level for a 5.

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