IDA Pro MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing prototypes, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'prototype' entails, potential side effects, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies function definitions.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('function_address' and 'prototype'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Set a function's prototype' clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('function's prototype'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'prototype' means in this context (e.g., function signature, type definition) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'rename_function' or 'decompile_function', which could involve similar function modifications.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing function), exclusions (e.g., not for global variables), or related tools (e.g., 'set_global_variable_type' for similar type-setting operations). This leaves the agent without context for appropriate tool selection.

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