Function Info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals one genuinely behavioral fact — the lookup accepts either a function name or an entry address — but never confirms it is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup, nor says anything about the `binary` target or error behavior when a function is not found.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the returned fields, then the argument convention. Nothing is wasted.

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 output schema already covers return values, so the description needn't restate them, and for a simple read tool the description is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the undocumented `binary` parameter and the absence of any fallback behavior guidance.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it only does so partially: it explains that `function` takes a name or an entry address, but leaves the required `binary` parameter entirely unexplained. Half the parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (查看/view) and resource (函数详情/function details) and enumerates exactly what is returned: signature, entry address, parameters, return type, size, calling convention. This implicitly separates it from list_functions or search_functions_by_name, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this instead of decompile_function, disassemble_function, or list_functions, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is the brief note on what the `function` argument accepts.

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