binary.get_function_il_at

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, safety (presumably read-only), error handling (e.g., address not in a function), or whether the returned IL is the raw or analyzed form. The 'full IL' term is ambiguous without context.

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 is appropriately concise for a simple purpose, but it could be structurally improved by adding parameter clarifications or a link to documentation without sacrificing brevity.

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 has 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what IL is, how to interpret the level, what ssa does, what address format is expected, or what the tool returns. A user would need external knowledge to use this tool correctly.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the four parameters: the meaning of the 'level' enum (llil/mlil/hlil), the 'ssa' boolean, the format of 'address' (oneOf integer/string), or the 'session_id' context. The agent must infer entirely from names and enum values.

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 clearly states the tool gets the full IL (intermediate language) for the function containing a given address. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like binary.get_function_at (which gets function metadata) and binary.get_function_disassembly_at (disassembly), as well as il.function (which may require a function index).

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternative IL retrieval methods (e.g., il.function, il.instruction_by_addr), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., analysis must be complete) or exclude cases (e.g., address not in any function).

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