analyze_low_level_calls

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

With no annotations, the description provides behavioral context: returns functions grouped by call type with source locations, supports pagination, and is critical for reentrancy and proxy pattern analysis. It doesn't mention permissions or side effects, but as a read-only analysis tool, this is sufficient.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: purpose, security context, output format, and critical use cases. No 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 but context indicates it exists), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers key behavioral aspects like grouping, source locations, and pagination. The scope is well-defined for a security analysis tool among many siblings.

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?

Context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, the description only lists the call types and mentions pagination, but does not explain parameters like path, limit, offset, contract_key, or visibility_filter. The agent must infer these from the schema alone, which may still be adequate but relies heavily on 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 finds all functions using low-level calls (call, delegatecall, staticcall, assembly). It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_events or analyze_modifiers by focusing on low-level call vulnerabilities.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool for security auditing, explaining that low-level calls bypass Solidity type safety. While it doesn't state when not to use it, the context is clear and helpful for an agent.

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