ghidra_funcs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape (address + name) but says nothing about whether the project must be pre-imported, how large listings are handled, or pagination against the 20000 default limit.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key noun phrase front-loaded and zero filler. It is well-sized; the shortfall is omitted content, not verbosity.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisite context, parameter behavior, and result scope, all of which the agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It never explains what 'program' selects when null vs. set, or what 'limit' bounds, leaving three parameters (one optional, one defaulted) undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List analyzed functions') and even names the fields returned (address + name), so an agent knows exactly what this produces. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from ghidra_decompile or ghidra_import, but the 'analyzed functions' scope is distinct enough to route correctly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a project must already be imported/analyzed), and no named alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration step preceding ghidra_decompile.

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