define_func

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains bounds inference, optional end address, success/error return structures, and a failure case (function already exists). Lacks details on database modification or permission requirements, but mutation is implied for a definition tool.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a line for return values. All sentences are essential, no redundancy, and the key purpose is stated first.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, clear schema, output schema implied), the description covers input processing, behavior (bounds inference), error cases, and return values. No gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 50% (items has detailed schema description, instance_id described in schema). Description adds context about IDA inferring bounds and return values, but does not significantly elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states it defines functions at given addresses, mentions IDA infers bounds unless explicit end given, and specifies return value structure. Distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_function or define_code by explicitly noting it's for when auto-analysis missed a function entry point.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when IDA auto-analysis missed a function entry point,' providing clear context for when to use. Does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the single guidance is strong and sufficient for this tool.

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