binary.get_function_at

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only says 'Find function by address' – it doesn't mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it can fail (e.g., address out of range), whether it requires a valid session, or what data the returned function includes (e.g., name, start/end address, type). For a lookup tool that could trigger expensive analysis, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose without any unnecessary words. It is perfectly sized for its function – no fluff, no repetition. Every word contributes to clarity.

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?

This tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage. The complexity is moderate, but the description is minimal. It doesn't explain the return value format (e.g., function name, address range, or object reference), nor does it address potential error conditions (e.g., address not mapped, session invalid). Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context to make the tool safely usable by an agent.

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%, meaning the schema has no descriptions for the two parameters ('address' and 'session_id'). The description does not detail these parameters either, but the parameter names and types are self-explanatory: 'session_id' obviously identifies a session, and 'address' is an integer or string representing a memory address. The description's lack of parameter elaboration is compensated by the clarity of the names and types, so this is acceptable but could be improved with examples of address formats.

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 'Find function by address' clearly states the tool's purpose: it looks up a function given an address. The verb 'Find' is specific, and the resource is 'function by address'. This is distinct from sibling tools like 'binary.functions' (list all functions) or 'binary.get_function_disassembly_at' (get disassembly of a function), so the purpose is well-defined and differentiated.

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 like 'binary.functions_at' or 'binary.get_function_disassembly_at'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the binary must be loaded, the address must be valid) or edge cases (e.g., what if no function exists at the address). The absence of usage context leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.

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