il.address_to_index

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 does not state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what happens if the address is invalid, or how the indices are returned (single vs. multiple). The description is too terse to adequately disclose behavior beyond the basic mapping action.

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 very short (5 words), which is concise but at the cost of completeness. It lacks critical context and is not front-loaded with actionable information beyond the most basic purpose. It is acceptable in brevity but insufficient in substance.

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's complexity (5 parameters, 3 required, with an enum for IL level) and the absence of an output schema, the description is significantly incomplete. It does not cover how parameters like 'session_id' and 'function_start' are used, what the output format is, or how edge cases (e.g., invalid address) are handled. The sibling tools list is extensive, and this tool's context within the 'il.*' family is not clarified.

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 explain parameter meanings. However, it only mentions 'address' implicitly through the tool's purpose, while 'session_id', 'function_start', 'ssa', and 'level' are completely unexplained. For example, 'level' is an enum with three values (llil, mlil, hlil) but the description does not clarify how these affect the mapping. The schema provides no hints either, leaving parameters semantically opaque.

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 'Map address to IL index/indices' is a clear verb+resource pair, indicating the tool converts an address to one or more IL indices. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'il.index_to_address' or 'il.function', which could perform related operations. The lack of distinction leaves some ambiguity about its exact role.

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 'il.index_to_address', 'il.function', or 'binary.get_function_il_at'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session or a specific IL level) or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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