analyze_function

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds the genuinely useful prerequisite that an ELF analysis must be active. It does not resolve the tension between "Read" and readOnlyHint=false (the analysis_project_id retention side effect), nor does it describe what the dossier returns.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is well structured, but the brevity is partly under-specification given everything the tool leaves unsaid.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a "dossier" contains, yet it does not; combined with an unexplained required parameter and heavy sibling overlap, the definition is not sufficient for confident invocation.

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 required "procedure" parameter has no schema description and the tool description adds nothing about its form (symbol name, address, mangled name?). With coverage at 50%, the description was expected to compensate and instead contributes no parameter meaning at all.

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?

It has a concrete verb and resource ("Read a function dossier"), but "dossier" is undefined jargon and the definition gives no signal for choosing it over the many similar siblings such as procedure_info, procedure_pseudo_code, procedure_assembly, or read_function_instructions. An agent knows roughly what it touches but not what makes it distinct.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only usage-adjacent hint is "active ELF analysis", which implies a session must be open but never states the prerequisite explicitly or what to do if no session exists.

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