basic_blocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It does not state that the call is read-only/non-mutating, does not mention the required IDA instance routing or instance_list prerequisite, and says nothing about output shape, ordering, or behavior when max_blocks truncates a function.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler wastes nothing. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness problem rather than a structure problem.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It never explains that addrs accepts multiple addresses or functions, what a returned block contains, or the routing prerequisite for instance_id, all of which the agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents addrs, offset, max_blocks, and instance_id in detail, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's mention of 'offset/max_blocks pagination' adds a light framing of their combined purpose but no syntax or semantics beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns function CFG basic blocks, which is more precise than a generic 'analyze' tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as disasm, analyze_function, or func_profile, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. The only usage signal is implicit in the word 'CFG', leaving the agent to guess how this differs from disasm or analyze_function.

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