Function CFG blocks (paginated)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the pagination behavior (offset/max_blocks), but does not disclose anything beyond the schema, such as multi-address batching semantics or ordering of returned blocks. With annotations and a full output schema present, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding; the resource and pagination scope lead immediately. It is efficient, though almost too terse to carry any routing or behavioral context.

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?

With a full input schema, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotations, the structured data carries most of the burden, and the description is minimally sufficient. It still omits any indication of how this differs from disassembly or function-listing siblings, which is the one contextual gap that matters.

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%, with each parameter (addrs, offset, max_blocks, instance_id) documented including defaults, max values, and example formats. The description merely restates the pagination parameters, adding no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Return function CFG blocks') plus the pagination mechanism, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate from nearby tools like disasm, func_query, or list_funcs, which also surface per-function structural data, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for retrieving control-flow information. An agent must infer that this is the CFG-block tool rather than disasm or func_query based on the name alone.

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