il.instruction_by_addr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what it does, but does not explain behavior: what happens if the address is invalid, whether SSA and level options affect the result, or if the instruction is returned as raw text or structured data. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 insufficiently structured for the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core action, but every sentence should earn its place; here, the one sentence does not provide enough information to use the tool correctly.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and 100+ sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return value (likely an IL instruction object), prerequisites (function must be analyzed), or how to handle optional parameters. The agent cannot determine correct invocation from this description alone.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. It only mentions 'source address' but does not explain 'session_id', 'function_start', 'ssa', or 'level'. The agent is left guessing what these mean (e.g., level is an enum for LLIL/MLIL/HLIL, but this is not stated). This is a critical gap.

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 'Get IL instruction by source address' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IL instruction'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'il.function' (which returns all IL) and 'binary.get_function_il_at' (which gets IL for a function). It defines the exact scope: a single instruction by a source address.

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 such as 'il.address_to_index' or 'il.index_to_address'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., analysis must be complete) or when not to use it (e.g., for a range of IL instead use 'il.function'). The agent receives no comparative context.

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