function_summary

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuine context beyond them: this is a single consolidated call covering many facets, and the response embeds '`# next:` lines' suggesting follow-ups. It stops short of describing failure behavior for a bad address or the format/size of the returned triage output.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, followed by the routing rules. No filler, and the alternative is placed after the primary claim where it is most useful.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back and does so by naming each returned facet plus the embedded '`# next:`' guidance. Purpose, routing, and payload are all covered for a single required-parameter read-only tool.

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 100% and the one parameter is documented as 'Entry, any address inside it, or a name.' The description adds nothing about the address argument beyond 'one function', so the schema carries the semantics alone — the baseline 3 case.

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 scope ('Triage one function in one call') and enumerates the returned facets: shape, loops, jump tables, callers, callees, strings, data. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `function` ('for the raw block table use function'), so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

'Use it before decompile' gives explicit workflow placement, and 'for the raw block table use function' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not address overlap with other siblings that also surface callers, callees, or strings (xrefs, callgraph, function_strings), leaving some selection ambiguity.

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