procedure_info

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context: it does not explain why readOnlyHint is false for an 'Inspect' tool (presumably because analysis_project_id persists the result), what happens on failure, or what state must exist. For a tool whose annotation profile is not self-evidently consistent with its name, that omission is a real gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the resource front-loaded after the verb. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, so it earns adequacy but not full marks.

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 three parameters, no output schema, only 33% schema coverage, and a dense cluster of procedure-related siblings, a nine-word description is far too thin. Return-value details can be excused by the absence of an output schema only if the description compensates elsewhere, which it does not.

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 33%: 'document' and 'procedure' are bare strings with no schema description, and the one-liner adds nothing about them. It does not say whether 'document' is a handle/path and what null (the default) means, nor whether 'procedure' takes a symbol name, address, or either — the most consequential thing an agent needs.

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 names a specific verb (Inspect) and a specific resource (an ELF function/procedure), and enumerates what it returns: signature, body, and metadata. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the many overlapping siblings (procedure_pseudo_code, procedure_assembly, analyze_function, procedure_callers), so an agent must infer that 'metadata' is the differentiator.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance at all. With siblings like procedure_assembly, procedure_pseudo_code, procedure_callers, and analyze_function all operating on the same procedure, the agent gets no help choosing among them, and no prerequisite (e.g. an open binary session) is stated.

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