Compare two MIPS function byte strings with an internal canonical diff engine to return an explicit unverified match level for identifying similar functions.
Compare two MIPS function byte strings using the internal canonical diff engine and return an explicit unverified match level.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arch | No | ||
| targetHex | Yes | ||
| candidateHex | Yes | ||
| targetAddress | No | ||
| candidateAddress | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose something meaningful beyond the name: the comparison runs through an 'internal canonical diff engine' and returns an 'unverified' match level, warning the agent that results are not a proof of equivalence. It stops short of explaining the match-level scale, determinism, or failure behavior.
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?
A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It could have used the remaining space to document parameters rather than stopping where it does, but nothing is wasted.
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 definition is thin: the 'unverified match level' return value has no shape given, address parameters are unexplained, and the enum values for arch (r4300i/r5900) are only in the schema without context on why they matter.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implies that targetHex/candidateHex are hex byte strings of a function and that the domain is MIPS, leaving arch, targetAddress, and candidateAddress—and any format expectations for the hex strings—completely unexplained.
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 concrete verb+resource: 'compare two MIPS function byte strings', and even names the output ('an explicit unverified match level'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as compare_functions, compare_rank, or rom_compare, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus compare_functions or compare_rank, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing disassembled function bytes first), and no exclusions. The agent must infer selection criteria purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.