infer_structs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about whether the tool is read-only, whether it persists anything, what permissions or prior analysis it requires, or what form the 'candidate structs' take. 'Infer' hints at analysis rather than mutation, but that is inference on the agent's part, not disclosed 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 front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the input concept, and the output concept with no filler. Nothing in it is redundant.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions across three parameters, this one-sentence description is thin for the tool's complexity. It leaves open what the return value looks like, how 'address' should be supplied, and how results relate to downstream steps like validate_variable_map.

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% for three parameters, and the description never mentions any of them. It does not say that 'hex' is the input bytes, that 'arch' selects between r4300i and r5900, or what 'address' anchors (base offset for the scan?), so the agent must guess at required formats and defaults.

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 gives a specific verb ('Group') and resource ('repeated base-register offsets into candidate structs and fields') plus the domain ('N64-to-PS2 variable translation'), so an agent knows it produces struct/field candidates rather than variables. It stops short of naming how it differs from sibling infer_variables or suggest_variable_names, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative; the phrase 'for N64-to-PS2 variable translation' only loosely implies a pipeline stage. An agent facing both infer_structs and infer_variables has no stated basis for choosing one over the other.

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