query_mock_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the operation is read-only ('never modifies a disassembler DB'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as what happens if the address is not found, whether it returns a single record or an array, or any error conditions. The read-only guarantee is helpful but incomplete.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the read-only guarantee. Every word 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?

The tool has one required parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the description lacks context about address format, not-found behavior, and how this tool relates to the sibling tools. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by address' and the schema defines 'address' as a string, but the description does not add format details (e.g., hex, decimal, or file-relative addressing). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so a 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Query'), a resource ('one test pseudocode record'), and a key parameter ('by address'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by focusing on a single record lookup rather than file listing, text search, or metadata retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implies usage: use this when you need a single test pseudocode record by address. It also notes that it 'never modifies a disassembler DB,' which hints at a safe read-only context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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