lift_handler

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the output structure and an error case for missing binary, but does not mention side effects, safety, or non-destructive nature, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and each sentence adds value. It is slightly verbose but not wasteful; front-loads the main purpose.

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 tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers input details, output structure, error handling, and implies a workflow with siblings. It is fairly complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: 'arch' with enumerated values, 'code' with base64 encoding rationale, and 'base_address' with default and context. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 explicitly states the action ('Lift') and the resources ('arch' and 'code' to VTIL IL), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'optimize' and 'emit' by being the entry point for lifting.

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 context (output is usable by 'optimize' and 'emit') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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