edb_list_functions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the output includes function names, addresses, and prototypes, which provides useful 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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes an Args/Returns section in a clear format. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or wasted 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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return type. It mentions the output contains names, addresses, and prototypes. No obvious gaps for a list tool.

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 a single parameter with a description for 'filter_str'. The tool description repeats this information and adds example filter strings, which provides marginal additional value. Schema description coverage is reported as 0% but the schema actually includes a description, so the baseline is 3.

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 action 'List all functions in the binary' and the resource 'functions', with optional filtering by name. It distinguishes from sibling list tools for other resources (e.g., bookmarks, breakpoints) and mentions equivalence to a plugin for additional context.

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 listing functions with optional filtering but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use. It relies on the tool's name and context from sibling tools.

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