Unique signature at an address

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden and does add real value: it explains the generation strategy (walk instructions, wildcard operands) and the goal (shortest unique signature), which tells the agent the output can vary in length and depends on uniqueness failing/succeeding. It still does not say what happens when no unique signature is found, but the added algorithm context is substantive.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler; the algorithm detail and the recompilation rationale each earn their place.

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 described, and readOnlyHint covers the safety profile, so the description is nearly complete for a read-only analysis tool. The remaining hole is sibling differentiation against make_signature_for_function and make_signature_for_range, which an agent selecting among them would need.

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 all five parameters including defaults and format options are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the 'starting at each address' notion for addrs and adds no syntax, format, or instance_id guidance beyond the schema — 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: creating unique byte signatures for addresses, plus how they are produced (walking instructions, wildcarding operands). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the three closely named siblings make_signature_for_function and make_signature_for_range, leaving an agent to infer the scope difference between 'addresses' and 'function'/'range'.

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?

"Useful for finding stable patterns that survive recompilation" implies the use case but states no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions. With siblings make_signature_for_function and make_signature_for_range in the same namespace, silence on which to pick is a real gap.

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