il.function

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read vs. write, side effects, permissions, return semantics). The single phrase 'IL function listing.' does nothing to reveal behavior beyond implying a listing operation.

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 extremely short (3 words), but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. It is not efficiently informative; it is merely skeletal.

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 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide any of the context needed for correct usage (e.g., output format, parameter roles, difference from sibling tools).

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% and the description adds no meaning to any of the 6 parameters (ssa, level, limit, offset, session_id, function_start). There is no explanation of what each parameter does or how to use them.

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 'IL function listing.' is vague and nearly tautological with the name 'il.function'. It does not specify a clear verb (e.g., 'list', 'get', 'retrieve') or resource context, and fails to differentiate from many sibling tools like 'binary.get_function_il_at' or 'function.basic_blocks'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions or exclusions. The description offers zero usage context.

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