emit_pseudo_c

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently states the output is best-effort and low quality, and explicitly lists the return format (code and il_block_count). No side effects or auth needs are mentioned, but these are not expected for a read-only emit function.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, followed by a brief explanation of quality and use case, then structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input source and output format. However, since the schema coverage is 0% and the parameter is a nested object, more detail on the il object's expected structure would improve completeness.

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 only parameter, il, is explained as the IL tree (raw from lift_handler or optimized via optimize). This adds value beyond the schema, which only specifies type: object. The context covers the parameter's origin and variants, though it does not detail expected keys or structure.

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: emit a pseudo-C reading of a lifted IL tree. The verb 'emit' and resource 'pseudo-C reading' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like lift_handler or optimize, which focus on different stages of the pipeline.

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 context on when to use the tool (quick first-pass read of VM handler body) and notes its limitations compared to IDA Hex-Rays or Ghidra. It also hints that the input can come from lift_handler or be optimized via optimize, but does not explicitly exclude other uses or name alternative tools.

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