make_signature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the generation strategy (shortest unique signature, instruction walking, operand wildcarding), but omits whether signatures are persisted to the IDB or merely returned, and says nothing about failure behavior when no unique signature is found within max_length.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the mechanism/benefit trailing. No filler, though the third sentence is somewhat redundant with the purpose statement.

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 compute-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains generation but not the returned shape, failure conditions, or the IDB side-effect question. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps given the lack of structured support.

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 all five parameters including the specific enumerations for format. The description's mention of 'wildcarding operands' loosely maps to the wildcard_operands parameter but adds no syntax, defaults, or format meaning beyond the schema, so 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 ('Create unique byte signatures for addresses') and clarifies the generation mechanism (walking instructions, wildcarding operands). However, it does not differentiate from close siblings make_signature_for_function and make_signature_for_range, leaving the agent to infer that this is the address-level variant.

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 only usage signal is 'Useful for finding stable patterns that survive recompilation,' which is a benefit statement rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no mention of alternatives (the two sibling signature tools) or of when this tool would not be the right choice.

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