make_signature_for_function

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 a two-step behavior ('resolves each name/address to a function, then generates the shortest unique signature'), but says nothing about what happens if resolution fails, whether the IDB is modified, or whether output is capped (the max_length parameter implies truncation/give-up but is not explained here).

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the resolution/selection behavior second. No filler and no redundancy with schema fields.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action but omits what a returned signature looks like, how multi-address input is handled in the response, and error behavior. The instance_id routing note lives only in the schema (in a different language), not in the description.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including formats, max_length default, and wildcard_operands. The description adds one genuinely useful semantic — that each name/address is resolved to a function before signing — but nothing about the format or wildcard options 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Create unique byte signatures for function entry points') and adds a scoping qualifier ('starting at the function start'), which distinguishes it in spirit from make_signature_for_range. However, it never names the closest siblings (make_signature, make_signature_for_range) so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for generating signatures for whole functions rather than ranges. There is no statement of when to prefer this over make_signature_for_range or find_xref_signatures, and no prerequisites or failure conditions.

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