analyze_function

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it partially does so by flagging 'Compact' and (via the schema) the token-saving default for disassembly. However, it never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are cached, or what the response shape looks like, leaving meaningful 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?

A single compact sentence that leads with the scope ('Compact single-function analysis') and then lists the returned artifacts. Nothing is wasted, though the noun-list style is terse enough that it reads more like a schema than guidance.

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?

For a 3-parameter read-only analysis tool with full schema coverage but no output schema, the enumeration of returned artifacts largely substitutes for a return-value spec, and the compact/token caveat covers the one behavioral nuance. Missing sibling differentiation and any explicit invocation prerequisites keep it short of a 5.

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 100%, and the schema documents all three parameters including the token-saving intent of include_asm and the instance routing requirement. The description adds no syntax, address-format, or routing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('single-function analysis') and enumerates exactly what it returns: pseudocode, strings, constants, callers, callees, xrefs, blocks. It does not differentiate itself from near siblings like decompile, analyze_batch, or analyze_component, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why this one fits rather than those.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite siblings such as analyze_batch (for multiple functions) and decompile (for single-purpose output) being obvious candidates. The word 'single-function' loosely implies scope, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over the alternatives.

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