binary.basic_blocks_at

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only mentions 'list' and 'pagination' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works (e.g., ordering of blocks), what happens if the address is invalid, or performance characteristics. This leaves significant ambiguity for a binary analysis tool.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loades the purpose and pagination feature. While more detail could be added, the current form is efficient.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and high cognitive load from sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'basic blocks' are in this context, the behavior of pagination limits, or the structure of the response. A more thorough description is needed for effective tool selection and use.

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%, meaning the description adds no parameter-level documentation. The description implies 'address' is the starting location and suggests pagination involves 'limit' and 'offset', but adds no detail on type constraints or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 because schema has numerous parameters, but the description could do more.

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 states the tool lists basic blocks at a given address, which is specific and actionable. The inclusion of pagination signals a key feature. It is clear and distinct from siblings like 'function.basic_blocks' (which lists blocks for a function) and 'binary.functions' (which lists functions).

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 implies use when needing paginated basic block information at an address, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., function.basic_blocks) or when not to use it. No context on prerequisites or alternatives is given.

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