make_signature_for_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: the result is NOT guaranteed unique, unlike make_signature. But it omits operational context such as the instance-routing requirement (instance_id must be supplied and chosen via instance_list) and whether the operation is read-only or mutating. Useful but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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 tightly written sentences with the core purpose and the differentiating constraint front-loaded ahead of the caveat. Zero filler.

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 full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and the non-uniqueness caveat adequately. The main residual gap is the instance-routing prerequisite, which the description never surfaces.

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 start, end, format, instance_id, and wildcard_operands. The description only restates the range concept and hints at operand wildcarding ('optional operand wildcarding'), adding little beyond the schema. 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a byte signature for a specific address range') with a concrete example, and it explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling make_signature by naming it and stating the key difference (no uniqueness guarantee). An agent can tell this apart from make_signature and make_signature_for_function without opening any schema.

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?

It gives a clear selection condition: use this when you want to encode a byte range without requiring uniqueness, e.g. a selected region. It names the alternative make_signature and the tradeoff. It does not, however, address when to prefer make_signature_for_function over this tool, leaving one sibling relationship implied rather than stated.

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