edb_get_function_bounds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns bounds and mentions a patching use case, which provides some additional context but does not significantly extend 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 extremely concise, with two sentences covering purpose and use case, plus a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple query tool with one parameter and a string return, the description covers the essential information. The return is vaguely described as 'Start address, end address, and size' without specifying format (e.g., hex), but it is still understandable. The presence of an output schema (implied) may fill this gap.

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?

Although the schema description coverage is 0% according to context, the input schema includes a description for the 'name' parameter. The tool description restates this in the Args section, adding no new information. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter.

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 retrieves the start address, end address, and size of a function. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'bounds' and mentions a use case, making the purpose distinct.

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 a use case ('understanding function layout and selecting regions for patching'), offering context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the use case is clear.

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