compare_functions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the verdict vocabulary (exact|structural|probable|unknown) and a conservative-evidence guarantee that it never claims confirmed equivalence. However, it does not explain what distinguishes 'structural' from 'probable', what happens when inputs are mismatched or unreadable, or anything about cost or determinism.

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 comparison scope front-loaded and the return-value contract following. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

This is a complex tool: two nested objects with three mutually exclusive input modes (hex bytes, ELF path + symbol, path + address + size), two undocumented stack-frame parameters, and no output schema. The description covers only the verdict vocabulary and omits input-mode selection, architecture/endian requirements for raw hex, and what the stack-frame parameters do.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all beyond the reference/candidate framing already present in the schema's property descriptions. The two stackFrameTarget/stackFrameCandidate parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, so an agent has no basis for supplying them.

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 and resource (compare two functions) plus the discriminating mechanism: comparison across N64 R4300i and PS2 R5900 by canonical instruction shape. That mechanism separates it from nearby siblings like diff_function or compare_rank without naming them, though no sibling is explicitly contrasted.

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 implied by the architecture pairing ('across N64 and PS2') and by the two objects being labeled reference vs candidate in the schema, so an agent can infer this is a cross-architecture matching tool. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how it relates to equivalence_record or diff_function, and no prerequisites stated.

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