Signature at a function entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful process detail (it resolves name/address to a function, then searches for the shortest unique signature), but omits notable behavioral facts such as what happens when no unique signature is found or when max_length is exceeded.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste, front-loading the operation before the resolution/generation detail. Nothing extraneous.

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 100% schema coverage carries the parameters. The description covers the core mechanism adequately, though the absence of any routing guidance relative to the other signature tools leaves a minor completeness gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description only restates the addrs resolution behavior ('resolves each name/address to a function') already covered by the schema, and says nothing about format, max_length, wildcard_operands, or instance_id.

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 ('Create unique byte signatures') with a clear scope ('for function entry points'), and the phrase 'starting at the function start' implicitly distinguishes it from range-based siblings. It does not explicitly name make_signature or make_signature_for_range, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite several closely related siblings (make_signature, make_signature_for_range, find_xref_signatures, get_algorithm_signature). The agent must guess which signature tool applies from the scope wording alone.

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