find_constraints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Extract' communicates a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the description transparently lists what the tool will look for: comparisons, branches, string references, and success/fail paths. It stops short of describing output formatting or traversal behavior, but the core behavior is clear.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the tool's primary behavior and output categories, then adds the relevant use case. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the result shape and any important selection constraints. It names the extracted artifacts but does not say how results are returned, nor does it address how function selection works when address and function_name are both absent (only binary_path is required). The schema fills in parameter details, but the overall invocation context has notable gaps.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it only reinforces that the tool works on 'a function,' which maps to address or function_name but adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Extract' with a concrete resource ('from a function') and enumerates the exact output categories: comparisons, conditional branches, string references, and success/fail paths. This clearly separates it from generic siblings like disassemble or decompile_function, and even from analyze_function_deep, by focusing specifically on constraint-related artifacts.

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?

'Ideal for crackme and CTF challenge analysis' provides a clear, explicit context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case guidance is strong enough to route an agent correctly in most situations.

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