list_procedures

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered; the description adds the session prerequisite. However, readOnlyHint=false is unexplained — the description frames this as a pure read, while the schema's analysis_project_id reveals a retention side effect that the description never mentions. With no output schema, nothing is said about the shape of results.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the action stated first and the prerequisite immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what a listed 'function' includes (name, address, size) and what the 'document' parameter does. The prerequisite is covered, but return content and one parameter remain opaque, leaving the definition minimally viable for a two-parameter listing tool.

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 only 50%: analysis_project_id is documented in the schema, but 'document' has no description anywhere. The description says nothing about either parameter, so the undocumented one is left entirely to guesswork — it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List functions') and ties it to the 'active ELF analysis' scope, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like search_procedures or list_names, and it silently swaps terminology ('functions' vs 'procedures'), so an agent must infer they are the same entity.

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?

'Open the .so with open_binary first' gives an explicit prerequisite and implies the session must already have an active binary. It never says when to prefer this over search_procedures (e.g. unfiltered enumeration vs. lookup), so alternatives remain unaddressed.

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