edb_generate_cfg

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it is equivalent to EDB's GraphWidget, outputs DOT format, and shows edges between basic blocks, providing behavioral context 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 only three sentences, front-loading the purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, equivalence, rendering advice, and parameter summary. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, output format, and usage hints. It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has high description coverage (both address and size have descriptions). The description repeats the parameter names and schema defaults but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool generates a Control Flow Graph in Graphviz DOT format, using a specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'Control Flow Graph'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edb_disassemble_range and edb_get_function_info by focusing on CFG generation.

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 mentions rendering instructions for the output DOT, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but lacks explicit guidance on trade-offs or prerequisites.

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