export_funcs

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful disclosure that the json format bundles asm/code/xrefs, but says nothing about read-only nature, size/limit behavior, or how c_header/prototypes differ in output.

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, front-loaded with the action and formats with no filler. It is terse to the point of being sparse but every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description only partially compensates, explaining what json contains but not what c_header or prototypes return, nor read-only/auth behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool with three documented params.

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, format, and instance_id including the routing note. The description restates the input as address or symbol name and the format list, adding no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (export) plus resource (function data) with the supported formats named, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like decompile, disasm, or list_funcs that also surface function content.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named; the agent must infer that this is the export tool versus decompile/disasm on its own. There are no exclusions or conditions that would route it away from a sibling.

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