edb_analyze_calls_at

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to cover safety. It adds useful behavioral detail about resolving targets for call, jmp, jz, jnz, which goes beyond the 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 a clear front-loading of the tool's action. The Args/Returns section is somewhat redundant given the schema, but overall it is structured efficiently without unnecessary fluff.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and an output schema (return type str), the description covers the input (address) and output (instructions with resolved targets) adequately. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 provides an Args section that repeats schema information (address parameter) and adds minimal context. Since the top-level 'params' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), the description partially compensates, but the nested address parameter already has a schema description. No new semantic meaning beyond the schema is added.

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 disassembles at an address and identifies call/jump targets, differentiating it from other analysis tools like edb_disassemble and edb_instruction_detail. Specific verbs (disassemble, identify, resolve) and resource (address) are clearly defined.

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 control flow analysis and branch target understanding ('Essential for control flow analysis') but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools (e.g., edb_disassemble, edb_find_references). The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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