function.basic_blocks

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires a session in analysis mode, or what happens if the function has no basic blocks. The description lacks all behavioral context beyond the basic listing and pagination hint.

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word adds value, though it could benefit from a second sentence on usage or parameters without breaking conciseness.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior (when limit/offset are omitted), required permissions, or error cases. A tool in a binary analysis context with siblings like 'binary.functions' and 'binary.basic_blocks_at' needs more context to be complete.

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%, yet the description adds no parameter-level details. It does not explain that 'session_id' identifies the open session, 'function_start' is the start address of the function (can be int or string), or how 'limit' and 'offset' control pagination behavior. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'basic blocks in a function', and adds 'with pagination' to clarify scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'binary.basic_blocks_at' which likely returns blocks at a given address rather than listing all blocks with pagination.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'binary.basic_blocks_at', 'disasm.function', or other enumeration tools. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., function must be analyzed) or when pagination would be necessary.

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