Locate patchable branch sites

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, lowering the bar. The description adds value by disclosing the kinds of sites returned (conditional jumps, calls, anti-debug int 0x2d), but it says nothing about scanning scope, cost, or how the function address maps to results beyond what the schema implies.

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 that gets straight to what is located and gives representative examples. Efficient with no padding, though it is quite terse given the tool's analysis role.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the readOnly annotation covers safety. However, the description omits any workflow context (that this precedes patch/patch_asm), leaving a gap for an analysis tool operating among many sibling scanners.

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 both parameters (instance_id, function_address) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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+resource: automatically locating patchable positions, and enumerates concrete categories (conditional jumps, calls, anti-debug int 0x2d). This distinguishes it from siblings like patch/patch_asm (which apply patches) and disasm, though it doesn't name 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative such as basic_blocks or disasm. Usage is only vaguely implied by the tool's purpose (find sites before patching), which leaves the agent to infer the workflow.

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