List Functions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits (paginated, case-insensitive substring matching), but says nothing about result ordering, pagination termination, or what happens with an invalid/ambiguous binary identifier.

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, zero waste, with the core action and the most non-obvious parameter constraint front-loaded. Nothing repeats the tool name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never indicates what a 'function' record contains (name only, address, signature?) or how pagination results signal completion. For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, more disclosure is needed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain 'filter' precisely (substring, case-insensitive) but leaves 'binary' (name, ID, or path?), 'limit', and 'offset' entirely to the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 ('列出二进制中的所有函数') plus the pagination behavior. It does not distinguish itself from the closely overlapping sibling search_functions_by_name, whose job partially duplicates the 'filter' parameter described here.

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?

Usage is implied: enumerate all functions in a binary, optionally narrowed by a name substring. It never says when to prefer search_functions_by_name, list_methods, or function_info instead, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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