il.index_to_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the mapping operation, omitting important details such as whether the operation is read-only, what happens with invalid indices, whether it requires a valid session, or any side effects. The minimal description fails to meet the transparency burden.

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 concise at 4 words, which is front-loaded but lacks essential structuring. While brevity is good, the omission of critical details outweighs the benefit of conciseness. It is not well-structured to guide an agent through selection and invocation.

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, no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose in context, parameter meanings, constraints, or expected output. The description provides virtually no information beyond the tool's name.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions in the schema), and the tool description does not mention any of the 5 parameters (session_id, function_start, index, ssa, level). The agent must infer semantics from parameter names and types alone, which is insufficient for correct usage. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 IL index to source address' clearly states the core operation: converting an IL index to a source address. It distinguishes from the sibling 'il.address_to_index' which does the reverse. However, it does not explain what 'IL index' or 'source address' means in the context of Binary Ninja, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'il.address_to_index' or other IL-related tools. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., open session, valid function start), nor does it specify when not to use it. This forces the agent to rely solely on the parameter schema without strategic context.

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