il.rewrite.capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'lists' support, implying a read operation. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any constraints. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 of 10 words, which is concise. However, it is not necessarily efficient because it omits critical information. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the output contains (e.g., list of supported rewrite types, status flags). It does not mention return values at all. Given the tool's role in a complex environment (IL analysis), the description is incomplete.

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 parameter meaning. It vaguely mentions 'one function and IL level' but does not clarify what function_start (integer or string) represents, what level (string) expects, or why session_id is required. No parameter details are added beyond their names.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('IL rewrite support for one function and IL level'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling rewrite tools (e.g., il.rewrite.noop_replace) by indicating it is a query capability rather than a mutation. However, the exact meaning of 'IL rewrite support' remains vague.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. Siblings like il.function or il.instruction_by_addr could also be relevant, but no differentiation is provided.

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