value.possible

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid address), return format, whether the set is mutable, or side effects. The minimal description fails to inform the agent about non-obvious behaviors.

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, very concise. However, conciseness is not a virtue when it sacrifices necessary information. It is front-loaded but under-specified, so it earns a middle score.

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, 3 required, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what a 'possible value set' is, how to interpret results, or the role of 'level' and 'ssa'. The tool cannot be used correctly without additional context.

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 no parameter descriptions exist. The description adds no meaning to parameters like 'ssa', 'level', 'address', 'function_start', or 'session_id'. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is a critical gap that leaves the agent guessing parameter semantics.

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 possible value set at an address' clearly states the action (Get), the resource (IL possible value set), and the location (at an address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'value.reg', 'value.stack', and 'value.flags_at' which target different value types.

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 (e.g., 'value.reg', 'function.ssa_var_def_use'), nor when not to use it. There are no prerequisites or context hints, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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