get_function_by_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only vs. mutative nature, error handling, permissions needed, or rate limits. It lacks details on what 'get' returns or any operational constraints.

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 zero waste, front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool. It avoids redundancy and is structurally sound.

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's low complexity, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on usage scenarios or behavioral details, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding without additional structured data.

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 the 'address' parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as address format or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get a function by its address' states the verb and resource clearly but is vague about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieving metadata, code, or details). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_function_by_name' by specifying 'address' but lacks specificity on the function's scope or output.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_function_by_name' or 'get_current_function'. The description implies usage for functions identified by address but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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