Retrieve all analyzed functions from a radare2 binary analysis session, enabling reverse engineers to inspect function structure and plan further analysis.
List all analyzed functions (afl).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says it lists analyzed functions. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how session context is handled, whether pagination applies, or any side effects. The '(afl)' hint is too terse to count as meaningful behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and scope, making it easy to read and act on.
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?
Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description is missing key context: no usage guidelines, no parameter meaning for session_id, and no behavioral profile despite absent annotations. For a tool with an optional session parameter, this leaves more unsaid than an agent needs to invoke it confidently.
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%: the single optional session_id parameter has no description in the schema. The tool description never mentions session_id or explains whether omitting it uses the current session, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource: 'List' plus 'functions', and narrows scope to 'analyzed' functions, distinguishing it from siblings like get_function_info (which retrieves details on a specific function) and analyze_function/analyze_all (which perform analysis). The '(afl)' alias is a small bonus that confirms the operation.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_function_info, analyze_function, or analyze_all. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.