Signature generation at xref sites

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it locates xrefs TO each address, generates a unique signature per xref site, and returns the shortest ones, which is non-obvious pipeline behavior an agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Three tight sentences: verb/resource first, mechanism second, use case last. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the middle sentence could be marginally trimmed.

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 explained, and the read-only annotation covers safety. The description covers purpose, mechanism, and use case adequately. The only minor gap is that it doesn't hint at how to choose among the related signature-generation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (top, addrs, format, max_length, instance_id) is already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that it operates 'for each input address,' adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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: 'Find signatures for code locations that reference an address.' It spells out the mechanism (finds xrefs TO the address, generates a signature at each xref site) which clearly separates it from siblings like make_signature, make_signature_for_function, and make_signature_for_range that operate on directly-signaturable targets.

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?

'Ideal for creating signatures for data addresses, vtable entries, or string references that can't be signatured directly' gives a clear when-to-use condition. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives (e.g. make_signature for directly-signaturable code) as an explicit fallback, so it is context without exclusions.

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