get_defined_structures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('returns a list') without detailing aspects like whether the list is paginated, sorted, or includes metadata, what happens if no structures exist, or any performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a complex system (e.g., reverse engineering).

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by adding a brief context hint.

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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail inputs or return values. However, for a tool in a complex domain (implied by sibling tools like disassembly and analysis functions), the description lacks context on what 'defined structures' entails and behavioral traits, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps in completeness.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description does not mislead about inputs.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Returns a list of all defined structures,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('defined structures'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_structures' or 'get_struct_at_address,' nor does it clarify what 'defined structures' means in this context (e.g., user-defined vs. all structures).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_structures' and 'get_struct_at_address,' there is no indication of whether this tool is for listing all structures without filtering, making it unclear when to prefer it over other options.

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