function.ssa_memory_def_use

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, but only says 'Get', implying a read operation. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, costly, or requires certain analysis state. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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, which is concise but lacks any structure or front-loading of key details. It is not verbose, but it is too minimal to be well-structured.

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?

For a tool dealing with complex SSA memory analysis, the description is woefully incomplete. It has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter descriptions. It fails to explain what 'definition and uses' means or what the tool returns, making it inadequate for confident agent 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'by memory version', hinting at the 'version' parameter, but provides no meaning for 'session_id', 'function_start', or 'level'. The parameter names are partially self-explanatory but insufficient.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'SSA memory definition and uses by memory version'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'function.ssa_var_def_use' by indicating this is for memory, not variables, but does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'function.ssa_var_def_use' or memory read/write tools. The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites.

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