get_function_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. It clearly signals a read-only metadata operation via 'Get' and lists the kinds of data the agent can expect. It does not mention error cases or behavior when multiple selectors are provided, but the core behavioral traits are transparent and non-destructive.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the metadata list is concise yet informative.

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?

The description gives a useful preview of return contents, which partially compensates for the absence of an output schema. However, it does not explain how the target function is selected when address and function_name are both optional, nor does it describe the full output shape. An agent may attempt a call with only binary_path and be unable to resolve which function to inspect.

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 schema already documents address, binary_path, and function_name. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify that binary_path alone may be insufficient to identify a single function. This keeps it at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('detailed metadata for a single function'), and it enumerates specific metadata fields such as cyclomatic complexity, stack frame, args, locals, and basic block count. It is clear enough to separate from list_functions, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from analyze_function_deep.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_functions, analyze_function_deep, or get_control_flow_graph. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated. The description simply states what the tool does without advising on selection.

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