list_functions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating that results come from radare2 analysis, implying the function depends on prior analysis rather than performing it directly, and it describes what output fields to expect. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether analysis must already have been run, or what happens if the binary has not been analyzed.

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 sentence that immediately states the action, scope, and returned information without any filler. Every word contributes meaningful information.

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 covers the core listing purpose and output fields, and the schema fully documents the parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., whether the binary must first be analyzed with analyze_binary), how results are returned, and when list_functions is preferable to related tools.

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 all five parameters are already documented with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond restating the output fields, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all functions identified by radare2 analysis') and enumerates the returned attributes: names, addresses, sizes, and call conventions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_function_info, which targets a single function, and list_imports, which targets a different entity type.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_function_info, list_exports, or analyze_binary. The intended use is only implied by the function name and the listing semantics, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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