edb_analyze_basic_blocks

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that blocks are identified at branch/jump/call/ret instructions and that output includes instruction count per block, enhancing transparency beyond 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 concise, with only three sentences and an Args section. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 description covers inputs and basic output (string listing). With an output schema present, detailed return format is not needed. However, it lacks information on error conditions or behavior with very large regions, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 description lists parameters with brief descriptions (address, size) which largely duplicate what is already in the input schema. The schema already provides rich descriptions (e.g., 'Start address (e.g., 0x400000 or function name)'), so the description adds minimal new semantic value.

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 clearly states it analyzes a code region and identifies basic blocks, specifying the verb 'Analyze' and resource 'basic blocks'. It provides additional detail about block boundaries (branch/jump/call/ret) and equivalence to EDB's Analyzer plugin, distinguishing it from other analysis tools.

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 implies usage for basic block detection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like edb_analyze_calls_at, edb_analyze_heap, or edb_analyze_region. No when-not-to-use or exclusionary guidance is provided.

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