Compact single-function analysis

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does so usefully: it discloses that this is a bundled summary covering multiple data families (pseudocode, strings, constants, callers, callees, xrefs, blocks) and that output is condensed. That composite, compact nature is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

A single tight sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the payload listed as a colon-delimited set. Nothing is wasted, though the list is terse enough that it functions more as a label than a full explanation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adequately conveys scope and payload for a read-only analysis tool; the missing piece is only routing guidance against sibling analysis tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so addr, include_asm, and instance_id are already fully documented. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the implicit 'compact' framing that relates to include_asm's default of false. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific action (analysis of a single function) and enumerates exactly what it returns: pseudocode, strings, constants, callers, callees, xrefs, blocks. This makes it distinguishable as an aggregate/overview tool versus focused siblings like decompile, callees, or basic_blocks, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With close siblings such as decompile, survey_binary, func_profile, and analyze_batch available, the agent is left to infer that this is the lightweight composite option rather than a targeted one. The word 'compact' hints at a token tradeoff but the condition for choosing it is never stated.

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