get_function_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies a read-only retrieval but says nothing about whether a session must be active, whether the address must be valid/resolvable, or what "detailed information" actually contains.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, so there is no padding. The unexplained "(afi)" suffix is the only wasted token.

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 tool with no annotations and two entirely undocumented parameters, the definition does too little: no session prerequisite, no address format, no indication of what fields the detailed output includes. The presence of an output schema covers the return shape, but the invocation context remains thin.

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%, and the description mentions neither of the two parameters. It gives no hint about the address format (hex literal vs. symbol) or how session_id interacts with the default active session, leaving the agent to infer everything from bare parameter names.

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 clear verb+resource ("Get detailed information about a function"), so an agent knows the general operation. However, it offers no differentiation from overlapping siblings such as analyze_function, disassemble_function, or list_functions, and the trailing "(afi)" token is unexplained noise.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell whether this is preferred over analyze_function or disassemble_function for inspecting a function.

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