value.flags_at

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It states a 'Get' operation but does not disclose whether it is read-only, destructive, or if it requires specific session or function state. It also lacks details on error conditions, performance implications, or side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool that appears to be querying an internal state.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, but it lacks structure or additional context that would make it more informative without significantly increasing length.

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 complexity of the tool (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'lifted IL flag read/write state' means, how to interpret the result, or how the parameters relate to each other. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without external domain knowledge or additional tool descriptions.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the three required parameters (address, session_id, function_start). The description only mentions 'at an address', hinting at the 'address' parameter, but does not explain 'session_id' or 'function_start' at all. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to parameterize the tool correctly, especially since both 'function_start' and 'address' accept integer or string types.

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 lifted IL flag read/write state at an address' specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'lifted IL flag read/write state', which gives a clear purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'value.reg' or 'value.stack' that also retrieve value-related information in a binary analysis context, and the meaning of 'lifted IL flag read/write state' may be jargon that is not immediately clear without domain knowledge.

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 such as 'value.possible', 'memory.read', or other value-related tools in the sibling list. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and vague description.

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