mco_pivot_to_ida

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return values and the fact that it analyzes an address in IDA, but does not mention whether IDA must be running, potential side effects, or error behavior. Some context is added, but more depth could improve transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose, specify outputs, and give a clear usage hint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and return values adequately. It could detail prerequisites (e.g., IDA Pro running) but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds the insight that the address comes from dynamic analysis context, but the schema already describes the address and context parameters sufficiently. No extra parameter semantics 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 clearly states the tool takes an address from WinDbg or x64dbg and analyzes it in IDA Pro, enumerating specific outputs. This distinguishes it from IDA-only tools like ida_decompile or ida_analyze_function and debugger-only tools.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when you have a suspicious address from dynamic analysis,' providing clear usage context. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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