Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@IDA Pro MCP Server @ida-pro decompile the function at 0x140001000 and show its cross-references"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Bridge Claude Code (CLI and Editor Extensions like VS Code, Cursor, Windsurf) with IDA Pro 9.0+ for AI-assisted reverse engineering. 87 tools covering virtually everything IDA Pro can do.
Claude Code / Cursor / VS Code (MCP Client)
│ (stdio)
▼
ida-mcp Server
│ (JSON-RPC over localhost:13337)
▼
IDA Pro Plugin (ida_mcp_plugin.py)
│ (IDAPython API on main thread)
▼
IDA Pro 9.0+Related MCP server: IDA Pro MCP
Copy ida_plugin/ida_mcp_plugin.py into your IDA Pro plugins directory:
macOS: ~/idapro-9.0/plugins/ or /Applications/IDA Professional 9.0.app/Contents/MacOS/plugins/
Windows: %APPDATA%\Hex-Rays\IDA Pro\plugins\ or C:\Program Files\IDA Professional 9.0\plugins\
Linux: ~/.idapro/plugins/ or /opt/idapro-9.0/plugins/
When you open any binary in IDA Pro, the plugin starts a JSON-RPC server on 127.0.0.1:13337.
claude mcp add ida-pro -- uv run --directory "/Users/benzi/Documents/IDA MCP" ida-mcpAdd to .mcp.json or your editor's MCP configuration:
{
"mcpServers": {
"ida-pro": {
"command": "uv",
"args": ["run", "--directory", "/Users/benzi/Documents/IDA MCP", "ida-mcp"]
}
}
}IDA_MCP_HOST — Override host (default: 127.0.0.1)
IDA_MCP_PORT — Override port (default: 13337)
Tool | Description |
| Hex-Rays C pseudocode decompilation |
| Full assembly listing for a function |
| Assembly between two addresses |
| Read raw hex bytes from an address |
Tool | Description |
| List all functions with optional filter |
| Detailed function metadata |
| Memory segments with permissions |
| Cross-references TO an address |
| Cross-references FROM an address |
| Defined strings with optional filter |
| Imported functions by module |
| Exported functions and entry points |
| Structures, unions, member layouts |
| Enumerations and values |
| Create a new struct type |
| Functions calling a target (with call sites) |
| Functions called by a target |
| Define a C-style string at address |
Tool | Description |
| Control flow graph — basic blocks with predecessors/successors |
| Read comment at an address |
| Read all comments within a function |
| Read function-level comment |
| Set function-level comment |
| Full stack frame layout (locals, args, saved regs) |
| Change operand display (hex/decimal/binary/char) |
| Retype a local variable in decompilation |
| Get instruction/function/segment color |
| Set instruction/function/segment color (RGB) |
| Hash function bytes (MD5/SHA1/SHA256) |
| Detect try/catch/throw in a function |
| Hex-Rays intermediate representation at any maturity level |
Tool | Description |
| Rename a function |
| Rename a label, variable, or address |
| Set regular or repeatable comment |
| Set C function signature/prototype |
| Set type at address |
| Rename local variable (Hex-Rays) |
| Apply type at call site |
Tool | Description |
| Text search through disassembly |
| Byte pattern/signature search |
Tool | Description |
| Start debugging the binary |
| Check debugger active/suspended state |
| Set software breakpoint |
| Remove a breakpoint |
| List all breakpoints |
| Enable/disable breakpoint |
| Step into next instruction |
| Step over next instruction |
| Continue until next breakpoint |
| Pause execution |
| Terminate process |
| Read CPU registers |
| Read memory from debugged process (hex dump with ASCII) |
| Call stack trace |
| List all process threads |
| Switch active debugger thread |
| Set hardware watchpoint (read/write/execute) |
Tool | Description |
| Patch bytes in the IDA database |
| Run arbitrary IDAPython code |
| Load .til type information library |
| List loaded TILs |
| Convert bytes to code (instruction) |
| Convert bytes to typed data |
| Revert to raw undefined bytes |
| Create function at address range |
| Delete function definition |
| Add persistent bookmark |
| List all bookmarks |
| Remove bookmark |
| List local variables and arguments |
| List named global data variables |
Tool | Description |
| Save the IDA database |
| Apply FLIRT .sig for library identification |
| List applied FLIRT signatures |
| Create new memory segment |
| Delete segment definition |
| Change segment rwx permissions |
| Define typed arrays |
| Jump IDA cursor to address |
| Export clean assembly listing |
| Export clean C pseudocode |
| Execute IDC script code |
| Trigger registered IDA UI action |
| List all available IDA actions |
Tool | Description |
| File path, arch, bitness, entry point |
| Check auto-analysis completion |
| Check IDA connectivity |
Add a bookmark at an address with optional description. Bookmarks persist in the IDA database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states this is a write operation ('Add a bookmark') and that changes persist in the IDA database, which is critical for a mutation tool. It does not mention permissions, but for a simple bookmark-add action, the persistence behavior is sufficiently disclosed.
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?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and a key behavioral trait (persistence). Every word serves a purpose, and there is no fluff or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no enums, presence of an output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the 'what' and the persistence behavior. However, the output schema exists but is not described, and since it's a write tool, a brief note on what the response contains could improve completeness, though this is minor.
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 0%, meaning the description must compensate. It adds that the 'description' parameter is optional, but the schema already shows this via 'default': ''. The description does not explain what address format is expected (e.g., hex string, expression), nor does it clarify the description's role fully. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: adding a bookmark at an address with an optional description. It specifies the verb ('add'), the resource ('bookmark'), and distinguishes from siblings like list_bookmarks, delete_bookmark, and set_comment, making its role unique and unambiguous.
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 implies usage when the agent wants to mark an address for later reference, and mentions that bookmarks persist, but provides no guidance on when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like set_comment, rename_address, or make_code. It lacks explicit exclusions or context for choosing it over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set a hardware watchpoint (data breakpoint). Triggers when memory at address is accessed. watch_type: write, read, execute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| watch_type | No | write |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses trigger conditions (watch_type values) but omits critical behaviors: whether the debugger must be active, if it halts execution on trigger, how to clear the watchpoint, side effects on debug state, or whether address is virtual/physical. Hardware watchpoints have resource limits (e.g., x86 has 4 debug registers) - this is unmentioned.
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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with the most critical info (what it does and what triggers it). No filler. Every sentence adds value given the 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?
Tool has a moderate number of parameters (3) and no output schema (despite the signal claim, it says 'has output schema: true' but none was provided in input). Given complexity (hardware watchpoint), the description should cover behavior on trigger, clearing mechanism, bounds (e.g., contiguous memory only), and debugger state dependency. It's incomplete for safe invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines watch_type values ('write, read, execute') but doesn't explain size (bytes? granularity?), or address format (hex? decimal? 0x prefix?). No parameter semantics for size or address beyond the schema. The description adds value for watch_type but under-documents size and address.
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 clearly states the tool sets a hardware watchpoint (data breakpoint) and specifies it triggers on memory access at an address. It distinguishes from siblings like set_breakpoint (software breakpoint) and delete_breakpoint. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., process-wide vs thread-local) to fully differentiate.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like set_breakpoint, step_into, or read_debug_memory. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., debugger must be running, address must be valid, or hardware support needed). Without usage context, an AI agent might misuse it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Apply a type signature to a call site (callee). Useful when the function pointer type is unknown at a call instruction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| prototype | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., database modification, reversibility), error conditions, or required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the operation and providing the use case.
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?
For a tool that modifies the database with two required parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., cursor on a call instruction), return value behavior (output schema exists but is unexplained), or edge cases. Lacks completeness for effective autonomous use.
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 0%, and the description does not explain what the 'address' or 'prototype' parameters mean or their expected formats (e.g., is address a hex string? Is prototype a C declaration?). The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.
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 clearly states the action ('Apply a type signature'), specifies the target resource ('a call site (callee)'), and provides a specific use case ('when the function pointer type is unknown at a call instruction'). This differentiates it from siblings like 'set_function_type' which target functions, not call sites.
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 includes a 'Useful when' clause that denotes a specific context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for direct calls) or mention alternatives such as 'set_function_type' or 'set_type', leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Apply a FLIRT signature file (.sig) to identify library functions in stripped binaries. Pass the signature name (e.g. 'vc64rtf' for MSVC runtime).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sig_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool applies a signature for library function identification, implying a read-like operation that modifies the analysis state but does not destroy data. It provides an example input. However, it does not mention what happens if the signature doesn't match, whether the operation can be undone, or if it requires specific permissions. Overall, adequate but not thorough.
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?
The description is two sentences and very efficient, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides a specific example. However, it could include additional context (like prerequisites) in a third sentence without harming conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has 1 required parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is somewhat complete but omits important aspects: what the output schema returns (e.g., list of identified functions?), what happens on failure, and whether the signature must already be in the FLIRT database. The sibling `list_flirt_signatures` suggests a prerequisite step, but this is not mentioned.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter `sig_name`. The description says 'Pass the signature name (e.g. 'vc64rtf' for MSVC runtime)', which adds concrete examples and purpose but does not specify format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed characters, that it may be a filename without extension). The description adds some value beyond the schema, which only provides the parameter title 'Sig Name'.
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 clearly states the tool applies a FLIRT signature file (.sig) to identify library functions in stripped binaries, specifying the verb 'apply', the resource 'FLIRT signature file', and the context 'stripped binaries'. It distinguishes from siblings like `load_type_library` or `list_flirt_signatures` by focusing on the application of a specific signature, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from `list_flirt_signatures` which lists available signatures rather than applying one.
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 a usage example ('Pass the signature name (e.g. 'vc64rtf' for MSVC runtime)') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `load_type_library` or `apply_callee_type`. It lacks indications of prerequisites (e.g., binary already loaded, need to match architecture) or situations where it's inappropriate (e.g., if no matching signature exists). No exclusions or sibling differentiations are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Continue process execution until the next breakpoint or event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions resuming until next breakpoint or event, but does not specify that execution may continue indefinitely if no breakpoint/event occurs, whether it can be interrupted, or if it requires an active debugger session. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is well front-loaded and gets straight to the point.
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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, for a debugger continuation tool, it would benefit from noting prerequisites (e.g., debugger must be running) or behavioral details (e.g., will run indefinitely if no breakpoint set). The many sibling tools provide context but the description itself could be slightly richer.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details to add. The description does not need to explain parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as there is nothing missing.
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 clearly states the tool continues execution until the next breakpoint or event, which is a specific action in a debugger context. It distinguishes from step_into and step_over, which also advance execution but by smaller increments.
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 implies usage when you want to resume execution after a breakpoint is hit, but does not explicitly say when to use this vs step_into/step_over or if a debugger must be running. The context of sibling tools like start_debugger, step_into, step_over provides indirect guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit when-not or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create an array at an address. element_type: byte, word, dword, qword. count: number of elements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| element_type | No | byte |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explains element_type values and that count is the number of elements. This gives good behavioral context for a creation tool, though it doesn't mention side effects like overwriting existing data.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value, but the parameter listing uses a colon format that could be clearer. No wasted words.
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 format is covered. The description covers parameters adequately but doesn't explain what happens if the address already contains a different type or if the array overlaps with existing data. For a creation tool, this leaves some ambiguity about destructive behavior.
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 0%, meaning the JSON schema property titles are minimal. The description adds meaning by listing element_type options (byte, word, dword, qword) and explaining count as number of elements. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.
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 clearly states the tool creates an array at a given address and lists the element types. It distinguishes from siblings like make_data or create_struct, which serve different purposes.
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 implies usage when you need to define an array in memory, but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Siblings like make_data or define_function exist but are not contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new memory segment. permissions: bitmask (4=read, 2=write, 1=execute, 7=rwx). seg_class: CODE, DATA, BSS, STACK, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| seg_class | No | DATA | |
| end_address | Yes | ||
| permissions | No | ||
| start_address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the permission bitmask and seg_class options but omits critical behavioral traits: whether overlapping segments are allowed, what happens with invalid addresses, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur (e.g., memory allocation, existing segment modification). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences covering the core action and two key parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no waste. While it could be more structured, brevity is a strength given the tool's straightforward nature.
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?
Despite having an output schema (unseen), the description lacks essential context: return value, error conditions, constraints (overlap, alignment), and prerequisites. For a tool with 5 parameters and 3 required, the description is too sparse to enable confident invocation without external knowledge.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for two of five parameters: permissions (bitmask values) and seg_class (list of examples). However, it does not explain name, start_address, or end_address, which are required. The added value is partial but helpful for the covered parameters.
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 clearly states 'Create a new memory segment,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_segments, delete_segment, and set_segment_permissions. The additional explanation of permissions and seg_class further clarifies the purpose.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_segment or set_segment_permissions. It does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where creation is inappropriate, leaving the agent without decision context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new structure type. Pass a name and list of fields, each with 'name' and 'type' keys. Example fields: [{"name": "size", "type": "int"}, {"name": "data", "type": "char *"}]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| fields | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It states that the tool creates a structure, which is a mutation, but it does not disclose any side effects, permissions, state requirements, or error conditions. For a write operation, this is insufficient disclosure.
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?
The description is concise, containing only two sentences plus an example. It starts with the clear purpose, then gives input instructions and an example. Every element adds value, and there is no extraneous text.
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?
The description covers the essential input format and provides an example, but it lacks context about the operation's effects (e.g., persistence, database modification), error conditions, and the output format. Given that an output schema exists, the agent can infer return structure, but the description does not clarify the tool's behavior after creation. For a tool that modifies persistent state, this is incomplete.
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?
The schema provides no descriptions for either parameter (0% coverage). The description adds essential semantics: it explains that 'name' is the structure name, and 'fields' must be an array of objects each with 'name' and 'type' keys. It provides a concrete example, which greatly clarifies the expected structure. This compensates for the schema's lack of metadata. However, it does not exhaustively document all allowed types or optional keys, so a slight deduction.
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 explicitly states 'Create a new structure type', which is a clear verb+resource pairing. It further details the required inputs and provides an example, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose. Among the sibling tools, none perform a similar creation action for structures, so it is well-differentiated.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. While the tool's purpose is clear, there is no usage guidance to help an agent decide to invoke it over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Decompile a function using the Hex-Rays decompiler. Pass a function name or hex address (e.g. '0x401000' or 'main'). Returns C-like pseudocode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions using the Hex-Rays decompiler and returning C-like pseudocode, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., failure on non-decompilable functions, performance impact, or permissions needed). Basic transparency but lacking depth.
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 sentences, no unnecessary words. Every line adds value: action, tool used, input format, example, output. Highly efficient.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, clear output) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention potential error conditions (e.g., function not found) or prerequisites (e.g., function must be defined), but the current level is sufficient for most use cases.
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?
The single parameter 'identifier' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds significant value: it specifies the format ('function name or hex address'), provides examples ('0x401000' or 'main'), and clarifies how to pass the input. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
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 clearly states the action ('Decompile'), the resource ('a function'), and the output ('C-like pseudocode'). It distinguishes from siblings like disassemble_function (assembly) and get_function_info (metadata) by specifying the decompiler and output type.
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 implies usage when C-like pseudocode is needed, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like disassemble_function or get_function_info. No exclusions or contexts are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the output type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a new function at a given address range. If end_address is empty, IDA will auto-detect the function boundary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_address | No | ||
| start_address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto-detection of the function boundary when end_address is empty, which is helpful, but it omits important details such as whether this operation overwrites existing code/data, whether it can fail, or what the return value looks like. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 sentences covering the primary action and a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place—no fluff or repetition. The critical information about auto-detection is front-loaded in the second sentence.
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?
The tool has 2 parameters (1 required), an output schema, and no nested objects. The description explains the tool's purpose and the key parameter behavior, but lacks info on return value semantics and error cases. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not thorough.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the effect of an empty end_address (auto-detection), which adds meaning beyond the schema's field names and default. However, it does not explain the format or constraints of the address strings (e.g., hex, decimal, or expression), which would improve utility.
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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'function at a given address range', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'undefine_function' or 'rename_function'. It explains the auto-detection behavior for the end address, which adds clarity beyond the name.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'make_code' or 'disassemble_range', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., that the range must be code already). The usage context is only implied by the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a bookmark by slot number (get slot numbers from list_bookmarks).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slot | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a destructive write operation (deletion) and preconditions (slot must exist), which is appropriate for a delete tool. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., errors if slot doesn't exist), but the simplicity of the action makes this sufficient.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes a parenthetical source for the parameter. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, no annotations, clear sibling context), the description is nearly complete. It lacks mention of the output schema, but the description's clarity on deletion outcomes suffices. An output schema exists but is not referenced, though that's acceptable for a delete operation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'slot' parameter should come from 'list_bookmarks', adding meaning beyond the bare integer type. This is concise and helpful for the agent.
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 clearly states it deletes a bookmark by slot number, with a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('bookmark'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'add_bookmark' by indicating deletion is done via slot number obtained from 'list_bookmarks'.
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 explicitly tells the agent to get slot numbers from 'list_bookmarks' before using this tool, providing clear context. It does not, however, specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools list includes other bookmark-related tools, so the instruction implicitly guides usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a breakpoint at an address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'deletes' a breakpoint but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether the change is persisted, whether it requires confirmation, or if it can be undone). For a mutation action, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, which is appropriate for a simple tool. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is slightly too brief given the lack of additional context from annotations or schema descriptions.
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?
Although an output schema exists (reducing the need to explain return values), the description omits critical context: that the debugger must be running, the address must correspond to an existing breakpoint, and what happens on error. For a tool in a debugger context, this completeness gap could lead to incorrect invocation.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'address' parameter. The description mentions 'at an address' but does not clarify the expected format (e.g., hex string, numeric, or virtual address) or constraints (e.g., must be a valid breakpoint address). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's property name.
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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'breakpoint at an address', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_breakpoint' and 'enable_breakpoint'. However, it does not address edge cases like deleting a breakpoint that doesn't exist or handling multiple breakpoints at the same address.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disable_breakpoint' or 'list_breakpoints'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the debugger must be active) or typical usage scenarios, leaving the agent to infer proper use from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete the segment containing the given address. The data is kept but the segment definition is removed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly flags that this is a 'soft' delete (data retained, definition removed), which is key for an agent deciding on mutation operations. However, it omits specifics like required privileges, reversibility (undo), or impact on addresses/functions referencing the segment.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence clarifies an important nuance (non-destructive nature). No extraneous words. A slightly more structured entry could add parameter format details without bloating.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (which can document return values), the description needn't cover outputs. The tool is relatively simple (1 param, no nesting), so the description covers the essential behavior and nuance. However, it lacks guidance on parameter format and pre/post conditions, which a complete entry should provide for reliable agent invocation.
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?
The input schema has 1 parameter (address) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description states the address identifies the segment to delete but does not clarify the address format (absolute, relative, offset), or whether it must be the segment base address or any address within. This adds value beyond the raw schema but leaves ambiguity.
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 clearly states the action ('Delete the segment') and the specific resource ('containing the given address'). It also clarifies semantics vs. a destructive full delete ('The data is kept but the segment definition is removed'). This distinguishes it from other segment operations like create_segment or set_segment_permissions, though it doesn't directly name any sibling for comparison.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like undefine or undefine_function, which also remove structure. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the address must be within an existing segment) or consequences for related data (e.g., functions or bytes mapped to the segment).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the assembly listing of a function. Pass a function name or hex address (e.g. '0x401000' or 'main').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states only that the tool returns an 'assembly listing' but does not describe the listing's structure (e.g., whether it includes addresses, bytes, mnemonics, or raw text), nor any side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open database). The output schema may cover return format, but the description adds minimal transparency beyond the basic purpose.
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?
The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes an example inline without being verbose. However, splitting the example into a separate sentence or list could improve readability slightly, but current format is efficient and earns its 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, likely read-only), the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and input format. However, it omits error handling (e.g., what if the function is not found or address is invalid), disambiguation of overloaded symbols, and any output description (though an output schema exists). An agent might need to experiment to understand edge cases.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the parameter's acceptable values: 'function name or hex address (e.g. '0x401000' or 'main').' This adds format guidance and concrete examples, making the parameter's intended usage clear. The only shortcoming is lack of details on how the tool resolves names (e.g., whether it requires exact symbol name or supports partial matches).
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the assembly listing of a function.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('assembly listing of a function'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like disassemble_range or decompile_function, which could cause ambiguity for an agent.
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 provides minimal usage guidance: 'Pass a function name or hex address (e.g. '0x401000' or 'main').' This tells how to format the input but offers no comparative guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., decompile_function for source code, disassemble_range for arbitrary byte ranges). The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Disassemble an arbitrary address range. Pass hex addresses (e.g. '0x401000', '0x401100').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_address | Yes | ||
| start_address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Disassemble' implies a read operation, but the description does not state whether it's safe or destructive, rate limits, or what the output format is (e.g., instructions, bytes, etc.). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
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?
The description is two short sentences, with the purpose in the first sentence and example format in the second. No filler or redundant information.
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?
Given the complexity of a disassembly operation, the description lacks details on return format (likely instructions, but not confirmed), whether it returns a stream or list, and if there are any bounds/limits on range size. The output schema is presumably present, so format details could be there, but the description doesn't hint at what to expect. With 2 params and no annotations, more context is needed.
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 0%, meaning the schema provides only variable names. The description adds crucial meaning by specifying that addresses should be given as hex strings with the '0x' prefix (e.g., '0x401000'). This compensates for the schema's lack of description, making it clear how to format inputs.
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 clearly states it disassembles an arbitrary address range, using the specific verb 'disassemble' and the resource 'address range'. It also provides example hex formats, distinguishing it from siblings like 'decompile_function' and 'disassemble_function'.
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 an example of hex format but lacks any guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'disassemble_function' (which is for a single function) or 'produce_asm'. No explicit when-not or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Enable or disable a breakpoint without removing it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enable | No | ||
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates that the breakpoint is not removed when toggled, but does not disclose side effects, required debugger state, permissions, or whether the change is reversible. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is too brief to be fully useful, but conciseness alone is well-executed.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (unknown content) and a large set of sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, or the preconditions (e.g., debugger must be running). The description is incomplete for a 2-parameter tool with no parameter documentation.
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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the schema), and the tool description does not mention either parameter. The meaning of 'address' (what kind of address? breakpoint ID?) and the effect of the 'enable' boolean are not explained. The description adds no value beyond the schema structure.
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 clearly states the action (enable/disable) and the resource (breakpoint), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_breakpoint by noting 'without removing it'. This provides a specific verb+resource with differentiation.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_breakpoint or delete_breakpoint. The phrase 'without removing it' implies a distinction from deletion, but there is no usage context, prerequisites, or when-not advice. Given the many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Execute arbitrary IDAPython code inside the IDA session. Set 'result' or 'output' variable in your script to return data. Example: 'import idc; result = idc.get_screen_ea()'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention potential dangers (e.g., crashing IDA, security risks, side effects of arbitrary code execution) or how errors are handled. The note about setting 'result' or 'output' for return data is helpful but insufficient.
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?
The description is two sentences plus an example. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds essential information. No waste.
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?
Given the tool's power (arbitrary code execution) and the large set of siblings, the description is incomplete. It omits warnings, preconditions, error behavior, and when to prefer this over other code-execution tools. The existence of an output schema slightly reduces the burden, but the safety-critical nature demands more.
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?
The schema provides no description for the 'code' parameter (0% coverage). The description adds the crucial context that valid code should set 'result' or 'output' to return data, and provides an example. This compensates somewhat, but lacks constraints (e.g., Python version, timeout limits, or syntax expectations).
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 clearly states the tool executes arbitrary IDAPython code inside an IDA session. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_idc_script (which runs IDC, not Python) and run_ida_action (predefined actions), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., run_idc_script, run_ida_action) or when not to use it. The context of arbitrary code execution suggests caution, but the description omits any such advisory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Terminate the debugged process and stop the debugger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly indicates the tool ends the debugged process and stops the debugger, implying a destructive termination. However, it does not disclose side effects like loss of debug state or whether cleanup is performed.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core purpose and behavioral outcome concisely.
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?
Given zero parameters and an output schema present, the description is adequate but leaves some gaps. It does not explain return value semantics (e.g., does it return success status or throw?), although the output schema may cover that. It is complete enough for a simple terminate action but lacks confirmation or error handling hints.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description needs no parameter details. The description appropriately provides no param info, which is correct for a parameterless tool.
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 clearly states the tool terminates the debugged process and stops the debugger, using a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes well from other debugger control tools like 'suspend_debugger' or 'step_into', though it could be more explicit about the finality of the action.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suspend_debugger' or 'continue_execution'. There is no mention that this is irreversible or that debugging should be active before calling it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all comments within a function (both regular and repeatable). Pass function name or address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool retrieves both regular and repeatable comments and accepts a function name or address. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, the format of returned data, or how 'within a function' is defined (e.g., comments at instruction level).
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys all key points. It avoids fluff and front-loads the action and scope, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing input types).
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool does and how to specify the function. However, it lacks edge case handling (e.g., undefined function) and a brief usage distinction from similar tools like get_comment.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating that the identifier parameter can be a function name or address. This clarifies usage beyond the bare schema definition, though it could be more specific (e.g., address format).
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all comments within a function', specifying both regular and repeatable comments. This distinguishes it from sibling comment tools like get_comment (single comment) or get_function_comment (function-level comment).
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 implies when to use the tool (when you need all comments in a function) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_comment or set_comment. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check if IDA's auto-analysis has completed. Some tools may return incomplete results if analysis is still running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses a key behavioral aspect: that this tool is a read-only status check and that results from other tools may be incomplete if analysis hasn't finished. This adds value beyond the schema, which has no properties. It does not describe the output format, but the output schema exists (see context), so the description need not repeat that.
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?
The description is two short sentences, with the key purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and a useful caution in the second. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
For a tool with no parameters and a simple boolean status check, the description is complete enough. The warning about incomplete results adds important context for the AI agent. The output schema exists, so return values don't need to be described. It could mention what 'running' state implies, but the warning covers that adequately.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameters to explain. The schema is empty, and the description correctly omits parameter details. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 clearly states the tool checks whether IDA's auto-analysis has completed, using a specific verb ('check') and a clear resource ('auto-analysis status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on analysis progress, not on reading or modifying data.
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 implies when to use this tool: before relying on results from other tools, as it warns that tools may return incomplete results if analysis is still running. However, it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools or say when NOT to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get metadata about the currently loaded binary (filename, architecture, bitness, entry point).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation ('Get metadata'), but does not explicitly state safety, performance characteristics, or that it always reflects the current state of the binary. The lack of explicit assurance is a minor gap.
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?
The description is a single, well-front-loaded sentence. Every word adds meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return data.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers what is needed: it states the action and the returned information. For a zero-parameter tool, this is sufficiently complete.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating the metadata fields, giving the agent a precise expectation of what the tool provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get metadata') and clearly identifies the resource ('currently loaded binary'), listing the exact pieces of information returned (filename, architecture, bitness, entry point). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific parts of the binary (e.g., get_function_info, list_segments).
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 states what the tool returns but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where other tools (like list_functions or get_bytes) would be more appropriate, nor does it exclude misuse cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read raw bytes from an address. Returns hex dump. Default reads 16 bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic read operation and output format. It does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, permission requirements, or whether the address must be in a loaded segment. For a read tool, minimal transparency is provided.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, the return format, and the default behavior. It front-loads the critical information.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the existence of an output schema, the description defines the basic behavior. However, it lacks differentiation from siblings and does not explain address validity or error handling, leaving an agent to infer important context from the tool name alone.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by mentioning 'default reads 16 bytes' for the 'size' parameter. However, it does not describe the expected format for 'address' (e.g., hex string or numeric) or that 'size' can be any positive integer. Partial compensation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('raw bytes from an address'), clearly stating the tool's core function. It also notes the output format ('hex dump') and the default size, distinguishing it from tools like 'read_debug_memory' which reads runtime memory.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'disassemble_range' or 'read_debug_memory'. The description does not mention constraints like valid address ranges, static vs. debug context, or when a hex dump is preferable to other representations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the color of an instruction, function, or segment. Returns hex RGB value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| item_type | No | instruction |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions the return format (hex RGB value) but does not disclose any side effects, error behavior, permissions, or limitations. For a getter, this is minimally transparent.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence. It conveys the essential purpose and return format without any wasted words. Perfectly concise for a simple getter tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core behavior (get color by address and optional type) and return (hex RGB). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values further. Minor omission is the lack of address format examples, but it is largely complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by clarifying that the 'item_type' parameter can be 'instruction', 'function', or 'segment'. However, it does not explain the 'address' parameter format or constraints, leaving a gap for that required parameter.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'color of an instruction, function, or segment'. It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like 'set_color' and 'get_bytes'. The scope is specific and well-defined.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context without any exclusionary or comparative information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read the comment at an address. Set is_repeatable=True for repeatable comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| is_repeatable | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation ('Read the comment'), which is fine. However, it does not disclose what happens if no comment exists at the address, the return format, or whether setting `is_repeatable=True` changes behavior significantly. The mention of repeatable comments adds some transparency, but gaps remain.
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?
The description is two sentences and 18 words, very efficient. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the action, the second clarifies a parameter. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be slightly more explicit (e.g., 'To read repeatable comments, set is_repeatable=True'). Still, it's concise and front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the core action and one parameter nuance. However, with siblings like `get_function_comment` and `get_all_comments`, it would be helpful to mention that this tool reads comments on arbitrary addresses (not just functions). The output schema likely covers return values, so that's mitigated. Overall, a minimal viable description.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `is_repeatable` ('Set is_repeatable=True for repeatable comments'), adding value beyond the schema's bare boolean. However, `address` is only implied as 'at an address' with no format, type, or example. This is partial coverage, earning a baseline 3.
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 clearly states 'Read the comment at an address' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `set_comment` (write) and `get_function_comment` (function-specific comments) and `get_all_comments` (all comments). The mention of the `is_repeatable` parameter further clarifies the tool's scope.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_function_comment` or `get_all_comments`. It also does not explain when to set `is_repeatable=True` beyond a brief mention. The agent must infer these distinctions from context, which is inadequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check if the debugger is currently active and whether execution is suspended.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only information retrieval, but does not specify return format, frequency limitations, or effect on debugger state (e.g., if checking status might affect suspend state). This is a gap for a diagnostic tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with verbs and key resources. Every word earns its place with no redundancy. It optimally uses brevity for a zero-parameter tool.
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?
Given no parameters, the description is nearly complete. An output schema exists, so return values are expected to be documented there. The description could benefit from a hint about common usage patterns or when to poll this status repeatedly, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so schema coverage is 100%. The description accurately summarizes what is being checked without needing to explain parameters. With zero parameters, the baseline for this dimension is 4, and the description meets it.
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 clearly states the tool checks debugger status for being active and execution suspended. This specific verb+resource combination is sufficient and distinct from sibling tools like start_debugger or continue_execution, though it could reference debugger lifecycle more 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?
The description implies usage in a debugging context by focusing on debugger status, but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice. While the sibling set includes many debugger tools, there is no mention of alternatives for retrieving debug state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check if a function contains exception handling (try/catch/throw). Returns the decompiled code if exception handling is found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool returns decompiled code conditionally (if exception handling found). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not mention what happens if no exception handling exists (e.g., empty result or error), auth needs, or side effects, but the conditional behavior is clearly stated for a read-only analysis tool.
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?
The description is two short, well-structured sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every clause adds value: the first states the check, the second specifies the return condition. No wasted words, though could be more compact.
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?
Given a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema (which may explain return format), the description provides the conditional purpose and return type. However, it lacks details on failure modes (e.g., invalid identifier, no exception handling) and doesn't explain what 'decompiled code' means in context. It's functional but not comprehensive for a reverse engineering tool.
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?
The input schema has one required parameter (`identifier`) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no documentation. The description adds no extra context for `identifier` (e.g., whether it's a function name, address, or ID). With zero schema coverage and only one parameter, the description should compensate but fails to explain the parameter's meaning beyond the property name.
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 uses specific verbs (check, returns) and clearly states the resource (function exception handling) and the condition (if found). It distinguishes from siblings like `get_function_info` and `disassemble_function` by focusing on exception handling context, not general info or assembly.
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 implies usage when analyzing error handling in a function, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `decompile_function` or `get_function_info`. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., function must exist) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all exported functions/symbols.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns static data or interprets the current analysis state, or any side effects. As a read-only tool, it lacks confirmation of non-destructiveness.
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?
The description is a single sentence of five words, perfectly concise with no waste. All essential information is front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and it's a simple list operation, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the output schema could be leveraged to describe return format. The description doesn't mention whether exports are sorted or filtered, which could be useful context.
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 coverage is 100% with zero parameters. The description adds no extra parameter info, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4. No additional explanation is needed.
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 'List all exported functions/symbols' clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'exported functions/symbols'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_functions' (which likely lists all functions) and 'get_imports', but it does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_imports' or clarify scope.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'list_functions' or 'get_imports'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the control flow graph (basic blocks and edges) of a function. Shows predecessors and successors for each block. Essential for understanding branch logic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description states what the tool returns ('predecessors and successors for each block') and its role in analysis. However, it does not mention whether this operation is read-only (it likely is, but not confirmed), any potential prerequisites (e.g., the function must be decompiled or disassembled first), or whether it might be computationally expensive for large functions. For a non-annotated read tool, this lacks full transparency.
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?
At three sentences, the description is concise without being terse. The purpose is stated upfront, followed by specific output details, and ends with a relevance statement. However, the last sentence ('Essential for understanding branch logic') is slightly redundant but forgivable. No fluff or waste.
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?
Given the complexity of this tool (it involves retrieving control flow graphs, which are non-trivial) and the lack of annotations or output schema details, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return format (beyond block edges), how blocks are identified, what 'basic block' means in this context, or whether the graph is returned as a data structure or just a textual representation. The presence of an output schema is noted (though its content is unknown), which could supplement this, but the description alone is insufficient for a tool that likely returns complex nested data.
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 0%, meaning the schema property has no description (e.g., no title or detailed params). The tool description adds a high-level purpose but does not clarify what the 'identifier' parameter should be (e.g., is it a function name, address, or index?). Without any param info in schema or description, the agent must guess. The baseline for 0% coverage is 1, but the description at least implies the identifier refers to a function, so a 3 is marginally justifiable.
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 clearly states that the tool retrieves the 'control flow graph' (specifically basic blocks and edges) of a function, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It also mentions the purpose ('Essential for understanding branch logic'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'disassemble_function' or 'decompile_function', which are also used for understanding function control flow, but at different levels of detail.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disassemble_range' or 'get_function_callers', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., that the function must be analyzed first) or when not to use it. The user is left to infer from the tool's name and purpose that it is for graph-level analysis, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all functions called by a given function. Shows what a function depends on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns functions called by a given function, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose whether results include indirect calls, library calls, recursive callees, or if analysis must be complete. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a reverse engineering context.
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 clear, well-structured sentences with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, front-loading the action and following with the result's meaning.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) which may document return values, so that gap is partially filled. However, given the complexity of reverse engineering and many sibling tools, the description lacks details about assumptions (e.g., analysis state, library coverage) and does not set expectations for edge cases. It is minimally complete for a simple tool but not fully self-contained.
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?
The sole parameter 'identifier' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds that it refers to 'a given function', so the agent understands it must provide a function reference. However, it does not specify acceptable formats (e.g., name, address, RVA) or whether the function must be defined. The description partially compensates for missing schema descriptions but leaves ambiguity.
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 clearly states the action ('Get all functions called by a given function') and the resource ('functions'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_function_callers (the inverse) and get_xrefs_to/from (more general references). However, it could be more precise about whether calls are direct or indirect.
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 implies use for dependency analysis ('Shows what a function depends on'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternative tools (e.g., get_xrefs_to, decompile_function). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all functions that call a given function. Higher-level than xrefs — groups by calling function and shows call sites.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool groups by calling function and shows call sites, but does not explain what 'call sites' entails, how indirect calls are handled, or potential performance implications. The read-only nature is assumed but not confirmed.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a useful differentiation. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.
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?
Given one parameter and an output schema (unknown content), the description covers the core purpose and differentiation but lacks parameter semantics and behavioral details. It is adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for a reliable agent invocation.
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?
The schema coverage is 0% (no description for the 'identifier' parameter). The description does not clarify what format the identifier should be (name, address, offset) or any constraints. The agent must infer from context, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.
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 clearly states the purpose: 'Get all functions that call a given function.' It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Higher-level than xrefs — groups by calling function and shows call sites.' This differentiates it from get_xrefs_to/get_xrefs_from and implies contrast with get_function_callees.
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 provides some context by comparing to xrefs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_function_callees or get_xrefs_to. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, though the differentiation is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read the function-level comment (appears above/below the function header in disassembly).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | ||
| is_repeatable | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates this is a read operation that retrieves a specific type of comment. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, and it does state it reads data without side effects. However, it does not disclose what happens if no comment exists (returns null/empty?), or if the identifier is invalid, or if the comment can be in different locations.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Read'. While concise, it could better use the space to address parameter semantics or usage 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?
Given the output schema exists, it reduces the burden on describing return values. However, with no annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more context on how the function comment differs from regular comments (covered by 'get_comment') and clarify parameter usage for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. While it describes the tool's purpose, it does not elaborate on the 'identifier' parameter (what format? a function name or address?) or the 'is_repeatable' boolean (what does repeatable mean for this read operation?). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's parameter names.
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 clearly states it reads 'the function-level comment' and gives context about its location 'above/below the function header in disassembly'. The verb 'Read' specifies the action, and the resource is well-defined. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_comment' or 'get_all_comments', which also read comments.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_comment' (which might be general) or 'get_all_comments' (which retrieves all comments). The description does not mention prerequisites or whether the identifier must be a function address/name, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Calculate a hash of a function's raw bytes. Useful for identifying identical/similar functions across binaries. Algorithms: md5, sha1, sha256.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| algorithm | No | md5 | |
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the notion of hashing raw bytes and lists supported algorithms, but does not mention performance implications, whether the function must be in the current binary, or if errors occur for invalid identifiers. With an output schema present, some behavioral aspects may be covered there, but the description lacks details like 'This tool reads raw bytes and computes a hash; it does not modify the database.'
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?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences, front-loads the core action, and every sentence provides necessary information: what it does and why it is useful. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, straightforward hashing operation) and that an output schema exists which likely explains the return format, the description is mostly adequate. However, it could briefly note that identifier must reference a known function in the database, which is not obvious from the description alone. The sibling list includes many mutation tools, so this read-only tool's description could be slightly more explicit about it being a read-only operation.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings. The description lists algorithms for the algorithm parameter (md5, sha1, sha256) and implies that identifier refers to a function. While it does not explicitly describe identifier as a function name or address, the context and sibling tool names make this clear. It adds value by specifying the valid algorithm values.
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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('hash of a function's raw bytes'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It also lists the supported algorithms, making the scope precise and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_bytes or decompile_function.
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 mentions it is 'Useful for identifying identical/similar functions across binaries,' which implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_bytes or decompile_function. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get detailed information about a function. Pass a function name or hex address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and input format, omitting details about error handling, whether the function must already be analyzed, or that the operation is read-only. The agent is left without safety or side-effect information.
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?
The description is two sentences, immediately stating the purpose and then the parameter format. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need no explanation. However, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this tool over similar function-analysis siblings. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
The input schema provides only a vague 'identifier' string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining that it accepts a function name or hex address, adding essential semantic meaning that the schema lacks.
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 clearly states the action ('Get detailed information about a function') and specifies the input format ('a function name or hex address'). This distinguishes it from siblings like decompile_function and disassemble_function, which transform code rather than retrieve metadata.
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 implies usage when function information is needed, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as get_function_callers or list_functions, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The input guidance is present but selection context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List named global data variables in the binary. Optionally filter by substring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral clarity. It correctly describes a non-destructive read operation ('List... variables') and specifies the filtering behavior is optional. It does not contradict any missing annotations, and fully communicates the tool's safe, query-like nature.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with zero waste. Every word adds value — the first defines the tool, the second adds the filtering nuance. The critical information is front-loaded, and no trivial or redundant statements exist.
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?
Given the tool's simple purpose (listing global variables with optional filter), the 1 optional parameter, and the presence of an output schema (which can describe return structure), the description is fully complete. It provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly in this context.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the single parameter 'filter' by stating it optionally filters results by substring. For a single optional parameter, this is sufficient to guide usage beyond the schema's bare structure.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'named global data variables in the binary', and includes an optional filtering capability. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_local_variables (which list local, not global, variables) and list_strings or get_imports (which list different data types).
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 states the tool lists global variables with optional substring filtering, implying its use case for inspecting program data. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., using search_bytes or navigate_to for finding specific data), the context of sibling tools (get_local_variables for locals, list_functions for code) makes the purpose distinct enough for an agent to decide appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all imported functions grouped by module.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('list'), which is consistent with no destructiveness. However, it does not disclose whether imports are sorted, or if modules are hierarchy-full or flat. No contradiction with annotations (none provided).
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?
The description is a single sentence with 8 words, no fluff. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. Ideal conciseness.
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?
Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return format. However, it lacks details like whether the grouping is by module name or path, if imports are resolved or raw names, or if the list is complete for the binary. This is a simple listing tool, but more context on grouping semantics would help.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description is not needed to explain parameters. It correctly adds nothing to the schema, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no misleading info.
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 states the tool lists imported functions grouped by module. The verb 'list' and resource 'imported functions' are clear, but there is no differentiation from sibling tools like get_exports or list_functions that may also list related items.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for listing (e.g., list_functions, get_exports, list_strings), the description should specify that this is for imports specifically, but it does not give exclusions or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all local variables and arguments of a decompiled function. Requires Hex-Rays. Pass function name or address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the dependency on Hex-Rays and the input format, but does not explain what happens if the function is not decompiled, whether the output is read-only, or what the return structure looks like. With a richer description, this could be higher.
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?
The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides usage constraints. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could potentially include a note about the return type without sacrificing conciseness.
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?
Given that there is an output schema (which presumably documents the return structure), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks guidance on error cases (e.g., if Hex-Rays is missing or the identifier is invalid) and does not describe the behavior for non-decompiled functions. This is adequate but with gaps.
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?
The schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description is the sole source for understanding the single parameter 'identifier'. The description adds significant meaning: 'Pass function name or address', clarifying that the string can represent either form, which goes beyond the schema's type-only information.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'local variables and arguments of a decompiled function'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_global_variables', 'get_function_info', or 'get_stack_frame' by specifying it focuses on local scope within a decompiled function.
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 provides clear context: it requires Hex-Rays and accepts either a function name or address. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., if Hex-Rays is unavailable) or contrast with alternatives like 'get_stack_frame' or 'get_global_variables', which slightly lowers the score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the Hex-Rays intermediate representation (microcode) for a function. Maturity levels: generated, preoptimized, locopt, calls, glbopt1, glbopt2, glbopt3, lvars.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maturity | No | preoptimized | |
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value by listing the maturity levels, which informs the agent about the stages of microcode optimization. However, given no annotations are provided, it does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., whether Hex-Rays is available), or performance considerations, leaving some burden unmet.
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?
The description is a single, concise paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then lists key values for the maturity parameter. It is efficient with no filler, though it could be more structured for readability.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown), which reduces the need to explain return values. However, for a tool that returns a complex IR, the description lacks context on how maturity levels affect the output and what the identifier should be (e.g., function name or address). It is minimally complete but misses critical practical details.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not explain the parameters beyond the schema. It mentions 'maturity' and 'identifier' per the schema, but no additional meaning; the maturity levels listed are a helpful start, but the identifier is not elaborated. Given the schema covers parameter existence but not detailed semantics, the description partially compensates.
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 clearly states the tool gets the Hex-Rays microcode for a function, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like decompile_function and disassemble_function. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as decompile_function or disassemble_function. It implies usage for obtaining microcode but does not explain scenarios where microcode is preferred over other representations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read all CPU register values. Requires the debugger to be active and suspended.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical prerequisite (debugger must be active and suspended) and implies read-only behavior. However, it does not describe potential failure modes (e.g., what happens if debugger is not active) or any side effects beyond the read operation.
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, dense sentence that conveys the purpose and a key prerequisite without any filler words. Every word earns its 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?
The tool is simple (no parameters, single purpose) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the core function and the essential condition for use, though it could mention error handling when preconditions are unmet.
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?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (no properties), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no redundant parameter information.
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 clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('all CPU register values'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like read_debug_memory and get_stack_trace by focusing specifically on registers.
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 specifies the required preconditions ('debugger active and suspended'), which gives implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like read_debug_memory or get_stack_trace, nor does it mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the complete stack frame layout of a function — all stack variables, their offsets, sizes, and the overall frame geometry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description correctly indicates this is a read-only introspection tool (getting layout info), which aligns with the non-destructive nature of similar tools. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or return format details, but given that an output schema exists (has_output_schema: true), the return structure is documented elsewhere. The description provides adequate high-level behavioral context for a frame layout tool.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and specifics. Every word adds value: 'complete stack frame layout' sets scope, 'all stack variables, their offsets, sizes, and the overall frame geometry' enumerates return contents. There is zero fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has only one parameter, no annotations, zero schema coverage, an output schema present, and moderate complexity, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what data it provides, which is sufficient for proper invocation. The existence of sibling tools like get_local_variables suggests a different scope, and the description clearly differentiates by mentioning 'offsets, sizes, and frame geometry' that are unique to stack frame analysis. No gaps remain for effective use.
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 coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema has no description for the single parameter. The description compensates by clearly defining the tool's purpose and what it returns, but it does not explicitly describe what the 'identifier' parameter means (e.g., function name, address, or symbol). However, given the context of sibling tools and the parameter name 'identifier', its meaning is reasonably inferable. The description adds value beyond the bare schema, but a brief note on identifier format would make it a 5.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the "complete stack frame layout of a function" and specifies the exact details returned: "all stack variables, their offsets, sizes, and the overall frame geometry." This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_local_variables (which likely returns variable names/types without layout details) and get_function_info (which covers broader function metadata).
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 implies the tool is for analyzing stack frame structure, which is most useful when a function has been identified and its stack layout is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_local_variables or get_function_info, nor does it provide any prerequisites (e.g., function must be defined, or identifier must be a function name/address). The usage context is clear but no exclusions or comparison to siblings are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the current call stack trace. Requires active debugger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a key requirement (active debugger) but does not state what happens if the debugger is not active, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but no details are provided.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds value: the action and the essential prerequisite. It is appropriately concise for a simple, parameterless tool.
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?
The tool is simple (no params, output schema present), and the description covers its core function and the main prerequisite. It does not clarify differences from get_stack_frame or the scope of 'current' (e.g., current thread), but for a basic getter with an output schema, this is nearly complete. A small gap remains in differentiating from similar debugger tools.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers this aspect. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description does not detract from that.
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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get the current call stack trace') that clearly names the action and object. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_stack_frame, which retrieves a single frame, and from other debugger control tools.
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 states a clear prerequisite ('Requires active debugger'), implying when to use it (after starting the debugger). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the guidance partially implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all cross-references FROM an address (what does this location call/reference). Pass hex address or name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (getting cross-references from an address) but doesn't clarify what format the output takes, whether the address can be resolved to a named location, or any side effects (none expected for a read operation). The output schema exists but is not shown in this context, which is acceptable since the description isn't expected to duplicate it.
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?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, with key information front-loaded ('Get all cross-references FROM an address'), followed by a clarifying parenthetical and input format guidance. Every element earns its place with no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema likely clarifies return types, the description is mostly adequate. However, for a cross-referencing tool in a reverse engineering context, it would benefit from mentioning return format expectations (e.g., list of addresses) or edge cases (e.g., what if address has no cross-references). The existing output schema may cover this, but with no annotations, a bit more context would strengthen completeness.
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?
The description adds value over the schema by explaining the 'address' parameter can be a hex address or a name, which the schema alone doesn't specify. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well, though it could further elaborate on name resolution (e.g., if symbolic names from IDA are accepted).
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 clearly states the tool gets cross-references FROM an address, with a helpful parenthetical explaining this means what the location calls/references. It specifies input as hex address or name, making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it could more explicitly distinguish from get_xrefs_to, though the FROM/TO distinction is implied.
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 implies the tool's use case (finding references an address calls), but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given sibling get_xrefs_to exists, the description should clarify that you'd use this for outgoing references and get_xrefs_to for incoming references, but fails to do so. The agent must infer the distinction from the tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all cross-references TO an address (who calls/references this location). Pass hex address or name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the action as a retrieval ('Get ... cross-references'), implying a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or output format, but the tool has an output schema that could clarify return values, partially mitigating the gap.
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?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with no extraneous information. Every word adds value: the verb ('Get'), the scope ('all'), the direction ('TO'), the clarity on input format ('hex address or name').
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, one clear action) and the presence of an output schema (which can document return values), the description is nearly adequate. However, it could benefit from mentioning the output schema or providing a note on expected results when no cross-references exist.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds context for the 'address' parameter by clarifying that hex addresses or names are acceptable. However, the parameter is simple (single string), and the description provides minimal extra meaning beyond what the parameter name and tool purpose imply.
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 clearly states the action ('Get all cross-references TO an address') and the resource type ('who calls/references this location'). It partially distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'to an address', which contrasts with the sibling 'get_xrefs_from', though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
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 offers implicit guidance by specifying the input type ('hex address or name'), but lacks any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling tools. No alternatives are suggested.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all bookmarks in the IDA database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states a read operation ('list') with no destructive implications. However, it omits details such as potential performance concerns for large databases, ordering, or error conditions. The output schema likely covers return format, but the description adds minimal behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word adds value: verb, resource, and scope ('all' and 'in the IDA database'). Optimal conciseness.
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?
For a simple no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, and the output schema will detail the return structure. No missing information needed for correct invocation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivial). Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on param semantics since none exist.
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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'bookmarks' in the IDA database. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like add_bookmark, delete_bookmark, and list_breakpoints by specifying 'all bookmarks' as the target.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_breakpoints or other listing tools. An agent has to infer the usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all currently set breakpoints with their status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'list all currently set breakpoints with their status,' which is minimally informative. It does not mention whether the list includes only active breakpoints or also disabled ones, how status is represented, or whether there are any side effects (e.g., reading debug state). Though the tool is likely read-only, this is not explicitly stated, and there is no indication of whether it will trigger a refresh or is safe to call frequently.
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?
The description is extremely short—a single clause—so it does not waste words. However, it is too brief to be considered properly structured; there is no front-loading of key details or any logical flow. For a tool with no parameters and a simple purpose, a few more words would make it complete without harming conciseness.
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?
Since the tool has no parameters, a simple description might suffice, but it fails to clarify what 'status' entails and how the output is formatted (even though an output schema exists). The sibling tools include many debugging actions (set_breakpoint, delete_breakpoint, get_debugger_status, etc.), so failing to distinguish this from get_debugger_status or to mention that it only lists breakpoints (not all debugger state) leaves a gap. The description should at least say 'lists all breakpoints set in the current session/workspace.'
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially satisfied). The description does not need to explain parameters, so this is acceptable. There is nothing to add beyond the schema here.
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 uses the verb 'list' and the resource 'breakpoints' clearly. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_breakpoint, delete_breakpoint, and enable_breakpoint, which are about individual breakpoint actions. However, the phrase 'with their status' is vague, and the tool could be confused with get_debugger_status, which might also mention breakpoints. A more explicit 'all breakpoints currently set' would improve clarity.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_debugger_status, set_breakpoint, or list_bookmarks. For example, it doesn't say 'use this to inspect all breakpoints before debugging' or 'this does not show hardware breakpoints.' Without any usage context, the agent cannot decide when to prefer this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all threads in the debugged process. Requires active debugger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states a behavioral requirement (active debugger) but does not disclose whether the operation is safe/read-only, what happens on failure, or any performance implications. It adds minimal context beyond the pure action.
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 short sentences: the first states the action, the second adds a prerequisite. Every word earns its place. The information is front-loaded and immediately relevant.
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?
For a simple 0-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential action and a key prerequisite. It could mention the expected output format, but that is likely documented in the output schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description has no need to document parameters. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no param value, which is acceptable.
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 clearly states 'List all threads in the debugged process,' using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('threads'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'switch_thread' or 'get_registers' which deal with individual threads or state.
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 includes 'Requires active debugger,' which gives a critical prerequisite. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., when the debugger is not active, use 'start_debugger' first) or mention alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all defined enumerations in the IDA database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all defined enumerations' without indicating whether it is a read-only operation, what the return format is, or any side effects. For a read-only query tool, this is minimally informative.
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?
The description is a single sentence of six words, very concise and front-loaded. It is efficient but could be improved by adding a brief note about the output (e.g., 'returns enum names and values') without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It does not explain what the output contains (e.g., just names or full definitions), which could be important for an agent selecting among many list tools.
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?
The tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable. However, it could have clarified that the list is unfiltered, but it already says 'all defined enumerations'.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all defined enumerations in the IDA database'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_structs and list_strings by naming the exact resource type.
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 implies the tool is for retrieving enumeration definitions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_structs for structures). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so usage context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all FLIRT signatures currently applied to the database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read-only listing operation, which is clear, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether it returns metadata or just names.
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?
The description is extremely concise—one short sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words, every part earns its 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?
Given the tool has no parameters and a simple listing function, the description is nearly complete. The output schema exists, so return values are covered. A minor gap is not explaining what 'currently applied' means or any prerequisite, but for a zero-param tool, this is sufficient.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the lack of arguments. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; baseline is 3, and the clarity of the zero-parameter context justifies a higher score.
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 clearly states the tool lists all FLIRT signatures currently applied to the database, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('FLIRT signatures'). It distinguishes from siblings like apply_flirt_signature.
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 implies this tool is for reading existing FLIRT signatures, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., no guidance on prerequisites or context).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all functions in the binary. Optionally pass a filter string to match function names (case-insensitive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool lists functions and optionally filters by name. It does not disclose whether the listing returns function addresses, sizes, or other details, nor does it mention performance implications for large binaries or whether it requires any analysis state (e.g., after auto-analysis). The description is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks depth for critical behaviors.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, zero wasted words. It front-loads the primary action ('List all functions in the binary') and adds the optional filter as a secondary detail. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, simple list operation) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably describes the return format), the description is adequate for a basic scanning tool. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., empty list if no functions match, behavior with invalid filter characters) and does not mention whether results include addresses or other metadata. For a tool with only one parameter and no annotations, the description could be slightly more detailed.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no documentation for the single 'filter' parameter. The description compensates by clearly explaining the filter usage: 'a filter string to match function names (case-insensitive)'. This adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema definition, telling the agent how the parameter affects behavior.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing all functions in the binary. It also mentions an optional filter parameter for case-insensitive matching of function names, which adds specificity. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'get_function_info' or 'get_function_callers', which might be confused for similar listing operations.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to list functions) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools. With many sibling tools for specific function operations (e.g., 'decompile_function', 'disassemble_function', 'get_function_callers'), the description should clarify that this is a general listing tool, not for detailed inspection or filtering by relationships.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all registered IDA UI actions that can be triggered with run_ida_action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. 'List all registered IDA UI actions' clearly implies a read-only, safe operation with no side effects. The description does not explicitly state safety or non-destructiveness, but the verb 'list' is strongly indicative. For a zero-parameter tool, this is mostly transparent.
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?
The description is a single 12-word sentence, front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word is necessary and no extraneous information. It is an exemplar of conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers what the tool does and how it relates to a sibling tool. An agent can correctly infer the tool's function and output without additional context.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters (empty properties) and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). No parameter details are needed. The description adds no parameter info because none exist; this is perfectly appropriate.
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 clearly states it lists 'all registered IDA UI actions' that can be used with 'run_ida_action'. The verb 'list' and specific resource 'registered IDA UI actions' make the purpose precise, and the mention of the sibling tool provides differentiation.
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 implicitly tells when to use this tool: to discover actions for 'run_ida_action'. It does not explicitly exclude other contexts or compare with sibling listing tools (e.g., list_functions), but the context is clear and sufficient for an AI agent. A slight deduction for lack of explicit 'when not to use'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all segments (sections) in the binary with their permissions and sizes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that the tool returns permissions and sizes, which is useful behavioral context. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation (though presumably safe), whether it has side effects, or any performance implications (e.g., scanning large binaries). The description is minimal, leaving many behavioral aspects unspecified.
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?
The description is a single sentence, directly stating the purpose and output content with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and concise, maximally efficient for the information it conveys.
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?
Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. The description covers the primary purpose and return information, but for a tool with such a simple interface, it is minimally complete. However, it could hint at common use cases (e.g., 'Use this to inspect binary structure before decompiling'), which it does not.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning no parameters exist to describe. The description adds value by explicitly stating the return fields (permissions and sizes), which goes beyond the empty schema. A score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to compensate for, and the description usefully amplifies what the tool returns.
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 clearly states the tool lists 'all segments (sections) in the binary with their permissions and sizes.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('segments'), and mentions the return information (permissions, sizes). While it distinguishes from many sibling tools that operate on functions, instructions, or data, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_binary_info' or 'get_imports' that may also provide high-level binary details.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., whether a binary must be loaded), nor does it suggest when to prefer it over tools like 'get_binary_info' or 'get_imports' for understanding binary layout. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all defined strings in the binary. Optionally filter by substring (case-insensitive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool lists defined strings and supports case-insensitive filtering, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance implications, or what constitutes a 'defined string' (e.g., strings from analysis vs. runtime). Basic but adequate.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. Every word serves a purpose. The optional filter detail is placed after the main statement, which is logical.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. An agent can understand what the tool does and how to use the filter. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly state the scope of 'defined strings' (e.g., all strings in the binary's string list vs. only select sections), but this is implied by the tool name.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by noting the filter is optional and case-insensitive. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter definition. However, it could additionally clarify whether wildcards or exact matching are supported.
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 'List all defined strings in the binary' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (strings), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_functions or list_structs. The optional filter is also mentioned, making the purpose very clear.
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 implies usage for listing strings with optional filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_text (which searches across multiple types) or list_imports. No exclusions or context about when not to use it are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all defined structures/unions in the IDA database with their members.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a listing operation, implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, clarify access requirements, or describe any side effects. An AI agent would benefit from an explicit 'read-only' hint.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. Every part is essential and earns its 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?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what is listed (structures/unions) and that it includes members. Given the sibling context, it sufficiently defines the tool's purpose.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, this yields a baseline of 4. The description adds value by noting that members are included in the output, which is not obvious from the empty input schema.
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 clearly states the tool lists all defined structures/unions in the IDA database with their members. The verb 'list' and resource 'structures/unions' are specific, and the inclusion of 'with their members' adds detail. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_enums or list_strings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_enums, list_functions). No usage context, prerequisites, or scenarios are mentioned. The description only states the action without advising the agent on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all loaded type information libraries (TILs) in the current database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic read operation ('list all loaded...') but fails to mention whether this is a safe read-only operation, potential performance implications for large databases, or what happens if no TILs are loaded. The existence of an output schema partly compensates, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently. However, it could be slightly more informative (e.g., hinting at the output format) without harming conciseness, hence not a 5.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, likely a straightforward list operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explicitly state what information is returned (e.g., names only, detailed metadata), which an output schema might cover. The description could provide a brief note on the expected output to fully inform the agent.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline score of 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation is needed, and the description does not provide any misleading parameter information.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('loaded type information libraries (TILs)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'load_type_library' which performs a different operation. The acronym TIL is explained, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings like 'load_type_library' suggest opposite actions, there is no explicit context about prerequisites, frequency of use, or comparison to other list tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Load a type information library (.til) file into the current database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing types), requires a specific database mode, or if it can be performed multiple times. The behavior is implied as a simple load, but key safety and side-effect details are missing.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter. No excess or redundant language.
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?
Given the tool's low parameter count (1) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably documents the return value), the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool that modifies the database environment, additional context about prerequisites, idempotency, or potential side effects would make it more complete. The sibling 'list_type_libraries' is not referenced.
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?
The input schema has only one string parameter ('path') with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description adds the meaning that this 'path' should point to a '.til' file, which is the minimal clarification needed. However, it does not specify whether it should be an absolute path, relative to the database, or if the file must exist.
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 uses a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('type information library (.til) file'), and indicates the action's target ('into the current database'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools, which are primarily for analysis, decompilation, debugging, and modification, not for loading library type information.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there is no mention of 'list_type_libraries' as a sibling to first list available libraries, nor when pre-loading a type library is necessary before decompilation or function type analysis. The description is purely functional with no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Convert bytes at an address into code (disassembled instruction). Optionally undefine 'size' bytes first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool optionally undefines bytes before conversion, which is a key side effect. However, it does not specify whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or affects the database state, leaving gaps in transparency for a mutation-like tool.
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?
The description is concise with two sentences covering the main action and an optional behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the second sentence could be more precise about the 'size' parameter's role, and the brevity sacrifices some necessary detail.
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?
Given the tool has 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is partially complete. The optional undefine behavior is noted, but the description does not explain the return value format (though an output schema exists, it is not inspected) or clarify the address format. The complexity is moderate, but the description could better address the agent's need to understand the conversion process and side effects.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It only adds context for the 'size' parameter (optional undefine behavior) but provides no meaning for the 'address' parameter beyond the schema's basic type and title. The default value of 0 for size is mentioned but not explained.
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 clearly states the tool converts bytes at an address into disassembled code, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'disassemble_function' or 'get_bytes' by focusing on conversion at a single address with optional undefine, but could be more explicit about the contrast.
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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disassemble_range' or 'disassemble_function'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the address must be in a code segment) or when the optional undefine is necessary, leaving the agent without clear context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Convert bytes at an address into data. Types: byte, word, dword, qword, float, double.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| data_type | No | byte |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions it converts bytes into data, which implies a mutation (vs. read-only), but does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it destroy previous data at that address? Is it reversible?). With no annotations, a 3 is neutral, but more detail would be needed for a higher score.
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?
The description is very concise, with two short sentences front-loading the main action and listing types. Every word serves a purpose. Could be slightly improved by adding a note about side effects, but as is, it's efficient.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (one required), no annotations, but has an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It fails to explain the size parameter, address format, or what the output schema contains. The sibling tools suggest this is a low-level data conversion tool, but the description could better help the agent understand when to use it over other conversion tools like make_code or make_string.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description mentions 'types: byte, word, dword, qword, float, double' but does not explicitly connect this to the data_type parameter, nor does it explain the size parameter or address format. The description adds basic meaning beyond the schema (type list) but is not thorough.
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 clearly states the purpose: converting bytes at a given address into typed data. It specifies the verb 'convert', the resource 'bytes at an address', and lists the supported types, which helps distinguish it from siblings like disassemble_function or get_bytes.
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 implies usage for converting raw bytes into structured data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like disassemble_function, get_bytes, or make_code. No context is given for when not to use it or what prerequisites exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Define a C-style string at an address. Pass length=0 to auto-detect (null-terminated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| length | No | ||
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that length=0 triggers null-terminated auto-detection, which is a key behavioral trait. It also implies the tool writes to memory, but does not mention whether existing data is overwritten or what happens on failure (e.g., invalid address).
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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and key parameter detail. No wasted words. A tiny improvement would be to move the parameter advice to the schema's description field, but this is acceptable.
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?
The description covers the core use case and a critical parameter interaction. However, it omits details about the output schema (which exists), potential error states, and behavior when the address range is invalid or overlaps other data. For a write operation, these are notable gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'length' (auto-detect behavior) but does not clarify the format of the 'address' string (hex? decimal? symbolic?), which the schema leaves ambiguous. Without the auto-detect detail, this would score lower.
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 states the exact verb 'Define' with a specific resource 'C-style string at an address', and adds crucial operational detail (auto-detect via length=0). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'make_code' (define code) and 'set_operand_type' (modify operand).
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 implies when to set length vs. using auto-detect, but gives no guidance on when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if strings are already defined, or if the auto-detect fails on non-null-terminated data). No alternative tools are mentioned, though siblings like 'patch_bytes' could be relevant for raw data writing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Patch bytes at an address in the IDA database. Pass hex bytes with optional spaces (e.g. '90 90 90' for NOP sled, 'EB 05' for short jump).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| hex_bytes | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool patches bytes, implying mutation, and gives hex format examples. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., impact on analysis, reversibility), permissions required, or error conditions. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.
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?
The description consists of two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a practical example. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and hex format. The output schema removes the need to explain return values. However, it could be more complete by noting how the patch interacts with the database (e.g., undoable, affects analysis) or specifying the address format.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides a clear example for the hex_bytes parameter (e.g., '90 90 90'), but does not specify the expected format for the address parameter (e.g., hex, decimal, with or without 0x). This partial coverage is adequate but not thorough.
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 uses a specific verb ('Patch') and resource ('bytes at an address') to clearly state what the tool does. The example with hex bytes distinguishes it from read-only tools like get_bytes, and the verb 'patch' implies write modification, differentiating it from other write tools like set_comment.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to similar tools like set_comment or make_code. The context is purely functional without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check connectivity to IDA Pro. Returns 'Connected' if the IDA plugin is running and reachable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses the tool's purpose (connectivity check), the expected condition (IDA plugin running and reachable), and the output ('Connected'). This is comprehensive for a simple read-only tool with no side effects.
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 sentences conveying purpose, condition, and expected outcome. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given zero parameters, no annotations, and a simple purpose, the description fully covers what an AI agent needs to know to use this tool correctly. The output schema exists, so return value details are already provided structurally.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable as there are none to describe. The value is in explaining the return value, which goes beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool checks connectivity to IDA Pro and specifies the success return value. It uses a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings, which are all about disassembly, analysis, and debugging.
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 implies this is a connectivity test, useful before calling other IDA tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but given its unique purpose among siblings (no other tool checks connectivity), explicit exclusion is less necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Produce a clean assembly listing for a function, suitable for copy-paste or file export.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully explain behavior. It vaguely states 'clean assembly listing' but doesn't disclose what 'clean' means (e.g., stripped addresses, formatting, or safety). It doesn't confirm if the tool is read-only or whether it affects the database.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter but no guidance on usage, parameter value, or behavioral context, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists, its presence doesn't compensate for missing input and usage details. The description fails to fully equip an agent to use this tool correctly.
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?
The single parameter 'identifier' has 0% schema description coverage and the description does not clarify what it expects (function name, address, index?). The agent cannot infer what value to pass.
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 uses a specific verb 'Produce' with a clear resource 'clean assembly listing for a function', distinguishing it from sibling tools like disassemble_function (raw disassembly) and decompile_function (C-like output). The mention of 'suitable for copy-paste or file export' adds context.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. With many sibling disassembly tools (disassemble_function, disassemble_range), the agent needs direction on which to choose, but none is provided. The description only implies use for a function, not for ranges or raw disassembly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Produce clean C pseudocode for a function, suitable for copy-paste or file export. Requires Hex-Rays.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key requirement of Hex-Rays, which is critical behavioral context. However, it does not mention if the tool is read-only, if it modifies the database, what happens on failure, or if there are side effects. The lack of annotations makes the description partially sufficient but incomplete.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It includes the essential condition (Hex-Rays requirement) without excess. However, it could be slightly more structured or include a brief usage note without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is mostly adequate but lacks context on what 'clean C pseudocode' means versus decompiler output, and how the output schema relates to the generated code. The presence of a decompile_function sibling suggests overlap, and the description doesn't clarify the distinction, leaving the agent unsure when to choose this tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter 'identifier'. The description only says 'for a function', implying the identifier is a function name or address, but does not explain the format (name vs address, which base, etc.). It adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema provides (type string). A bit more detail on the expected format would raise the score.
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 clearly states the verb 'produce' and the resource 'clean C pseudocode for a function'. It also specifies the output format is suitable for copy-paste or file export, and mentions the requirement of Hex-Rays. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decompile_function and disassemble_function, though the exact difference from decompile_function could be more explicit.
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 provides some usage guidance by stating the tool is for producing 'clean' C pseudocode and requires Hex-Rays. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus decompile_function or produce_asm, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The context of sibling tools implies alternatives but no direct comparison is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read memory from the debugged process. Requires active debugger. Returns hex dump.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the prerequisite (active debugger) and output format (hex dump), which are useful. However, it does not disclose any side effects, security implications, or error conditions, and the base has no annotations to rely on.
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?
The description is extremely concise with only two short sentences that deliver essential information (purpose, prerequisite, output). Every word serves a purpose and there is no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The tool has 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, but does have an output schema that may clarify the return value. The description links to the debugger context but lacks detail on parameter constraints, format of the address string (e.g., hex prefix), or size limits. Given the complexity of memory reading, more guidance on safe usage would improve completeness.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It does not describe the 'address' or 'size' parameters beyond what their names imply. This is a missed opportunity, though the parameter names are somewhat meaningful on their own, resulting in a baseline of 3.
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 explicitly states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('memory from the debugged process'), and action ('Returns hex dump'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_bytes or disassemble_range by focusing on the debugger context.
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 explicitly states a critical prerequisite ('Requires active debugger'), providing clear guidance on when the tool is valid. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, which prevents a score of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Rename any address (global variable, label, etc). Pass hex address and new name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| new_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'rename any address' without mentioning side effects (e.g., is the change permanent? Does it affect cross-references? Is it reversible?). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. Every part contributes to the purpose. It is front-loaded and highly concise.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, low schema coverage, and the complexity of renaming addresses in a disassembly tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain behavior for invalid addresses, uniqueness of names, return value (despite an output schema existing), or whether the operation is idempotent. The agent lacks context for safe invocation.
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?
The schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions for parameters), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'Pass hex address and new name,' clarifying that address should be in hex format. However, it does not explain constraints for new_name or other details, so the addition is minimal.
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 clearly states 'Rename any address (global variable, label, etc)' with a specific verb and resource, and implies distinction from sibling tools like rename_function (which renames functions) and rename_local_variable (local scope). However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies that addresses (global variables, labels) are the target, without stating when not to use it or naming alternative tools for similar tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Rename a function. Pass the current name or hex address, and the new name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | ||
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Rename a function' but does not mention side effects, permissions, persistence, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose first and then explains the input requirements. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential input semantics but lacks depth on edge cases, expected outcomes, or limitations. It is minimally sufficient but leaves room for improvement in behavioral details.
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?
The schema has no descriptions for parameters and 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'identifier' can be either the current name or a hex address, and 'new_name' is the replacement name. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema fields, though it does not specify format constraints for the hex address.
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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Rename a function.' This distinguishes it from siblings like rename_address, which likely targets addresses rather than functions. The additional context about passing current name or hex address reinforces the function-specific scope.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rename_address. It implies basic usage for renaming functions but does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Rename a local variable or argument in a decompiled function. Requires Hex-Rays.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | ||
| old_name | Yes | ||
| function_identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only discloses the Hex-Rays dependency. There is no mention of side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the binary), error conditions (e.g., variable not found), reversibility, or permissions needed. No annotation contradiction.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though it sacrifices completeness. It earns its place but could benefit from more structured information.
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?
Given three required parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and an existing output schema (not shown), the description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine how to specify the function identifier, what the return value is, or what errors may occur. The output schema existence partially offsets the need to explain return format, but parameter usage remains unclear.
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 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description does not clarify the meaning or format of any parameter beyond their names. For instance, 'function_identifier' could be an address, a name, or a numeric ID; no guidance is provided. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details.
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 explicitly states the action 'Rename' and the resource 'local variable or argument in a decompiled function'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'rename_function' (renames functions) and 'rename_address' (renames addresses). The mention of Hex-Rays adds specificity.
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 provides a prerequisite ('Requires Hex-Rays') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_local_variable_type' or 'rename_function'. There is no mention of when not to use it or the context in which local variables exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Trigger a registered IDA UI action by name (e.g. 'ToggleBnds', 'MakeCode'). Use list_ida_actions to see available actions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Trigger... by name' with no mention of side effects, destructiveness, return value, error handling, or required permissions. For a tool that executes an action (potentially destructive), this is a significant gap. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name itself.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and includes a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise while still being informative.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter, an output schema (not shown), and many siblings, the description covers purpose and how to get action names. However, it omits any mention of the tool's return value or side effects. Since an output schema exists, the description is not required to detail return values, but the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., whether the action modifies the database) leaves a completeness gap. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
The input schema has 0% coverage (no description for action_name), but the description compensates well by providing concrete examples ('e.g. ‘ToggleBnds’, ‘MakeCode’') and clarifying that the parameter is the name of a registered UI action. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare 'Action Name' label, though it could specify case sensitivity or format.
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 clearly states the tool's verb ('Trigger') and resource ('registered IDA UI action'), provides concrete examples ('ToggleBnds', 'MakeCode'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing list_ida_actions as a companion tool to discover available actions. This makes the purpose unambiguous and fully differentiated.
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 advises using list_ida_actions to see available actions, which is a helpful usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this generic tool over dedicated sibling tools like make_code or make_data, nor does it mention any 'when not to use' scenarios. The guidance is present but minimal, earning a 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Execute IDC script code (IDA's native scripting language). Returns the evaluation result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the execution is sandboxed, if there are side effects on the database, or any security implications. Without annotations, the description should cover these aspects but does not.
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?
The description is concise, consisting of one sentence. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the purpose and adding a brief usage note, but it is not unnecessarily verbose.
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?
Given that there is an output schema (implied by 'has output schema: true'), the description does not need to detail return values. However, for a script execution tool with no annotations, more contextual completeness about error handling or scope limitations is warranted.
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?
There is only one parameter (code), and the description provides no additional context beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what format or constraints the code string should follow.
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 states the tool executes IDC script code and returns results, which is clear. However, there is no differentiation from the sibling tool execute_idapython, which serves a similar purpose for Python scripts, thus missing a chance to disambiguate.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_idapython, or on prerequisites such as the need for an active IDA session. The description is generic and lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Save the IDA database. Pass a path to save to a specific location, or leave empty to save in-place.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It offers minimal transparency: it does not state if this is a mutation (destructive write), what happens if the path is invalid, whether it overwrites existing files, whether it triggers a full analysis re-run, or if it's safe for concurrent access. The sibling list includes patch_bytes (clearly destructive) and undefine (clearly destructive), but save_database's description doesn't clarify its safety profile at all. A mention like 'writes current state to disk, overwriting existing file at path' would greatly improve transparency.
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?
The description is very concise—two short sentences—and front-loads the core purpose ('Save the IDA database'). Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the one parameter. No fluff. The only reason it's not a 5 is that it could be even tighter (e.g., merge into one sentence: 'Save the IDA database; provide a path to save elsewhere or leave empty to save in-place.'), but the current structure is clear and efficient.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, 0 required, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It explains the parameter's behavior fully. The presence of an output schema (to which the description need not refer) partially compensates for the missing annotations. A small gap remains: the description does not state return value behavior (does it return success/error info? path of saved file?), and the output schema might provide that, but the description should ideally hint at the response format for a new user.
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?
Although schema description coverage is 0% (the schema property for 'path' has no description), the tool description fully covers the single parameter's semantics: 'Pass a path to save to a specific location, or leave empty to save in-place.' This is clear, actionable, and adds significant value beyond the schema's bare properties definition (type + default). The default value is 'empty string', which aligns with 'leave empty to save in-place.'
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: saving the IDA database. It identifies the key resource ('IDA database') and the action ('Save'). The sibling context (many read/analysis tools, a few mutation tools like patch_bytes, undefine) doesn't create confusion, as this is the only 'save' operation, though it shares a 'database' mutation category with patch_bytes and undefine. A more precise verb like 'persist' or 'write to disk' and indicating that this is the core persistence operation would make it a 5.
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 provides clear guidance on how to use the path parameter ('pass path to save to specific location, or leave empty to save in-place'). However, it lacks when-to-use guidance vs alternatives (e.g., there's no sibling for 'save as', but the tool might conflict with auto-save or IDA's own save mechanisms). No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must database be open? must it be modified?). The parameter usage is well-explained for a single-parameter tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for a byte pattern in the binary. Pass hex bytes with optional spaces (e.g. '90 90 90' or 'CC CC' or '48 8B 05').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the input format and hints at the pattern nature, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what happens with invalid patterns, performance with large result sets, or whether the search is case-sensitive. The default max_results of 100 is documented in the schema but not mentioned in the description.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence with embedded examples. Each phrase earns its place. Could be slightly clearer by separating the examples from the main instruction, but still very concise.
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?
Given the output schema exists (return format likely clear to agent), the description addresses input format well. However, behavior for edge cases (no matches, timeouts, memory limits) and additional traits (case sensitivity, wildcards) are missing. For a binary search tool, completeness is adequate but has gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does a good job with 'pattern' (format, examples) but provides no guidance on 'max_results' (its meaning, limitations, or notation). The description adds moderate value beyond the minimal schema for one of two parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('byte pattern in the binary'), with concrete examples. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'search_text' (which searches strings) and 'get_bytes' (which retrieves bytes at an address).
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 provides explicit input format guidance ('hex bytes with optional spaces') and examples, but does not state when to use this vs. alternative search tools (e.g., when to use search_text instead). Sibling names like 'search_text' suggest alternatives, but the description doesn't reference them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search through disassembly text for a string. Matches against instruction mnemonics, operands, and comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_results | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the matching scope (mnemonics, operands, comments), which is useful. However, it omits behavioral details such as case sensitivity, regex support, search scope (all segments vs current), and whether it is a linear or indexed search. This leaves significant gaps.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 13 words, which is very concise. It front-loads the verb and resource. While it could include more detail without being verbose, it earns its place by being efficient and to the point. No wasted words.
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 are not the description's responsibility. However, the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage. The description explains what it searches and where, but does not cover behavior like case sensitivity, search scope, or how results are ordered. It is adequate for a simple search but lacks completeness for a production tool.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly covers the 'query' parameter by stating it searches for 'a string'. The 'max_results' parameter is not mentioned at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's param names and types.
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 clearly states the tool searches through disassembly text, specifying the verb 'Search' and the resource 'disassembly text'. It further clarifies what it matches against (instruction mnemonics, operands, and comments), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_bytes (which searches raw bytes).
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 implies the tool is for text-based search within disassembly, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., search_bytes, get_xrefs_to). No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites is provided. The usage is clear only from context, not from explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set a breakpoint at an address. Pass hex address or function name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool creates a breakpoint (a mutation) but does not discuss side effects (e.g., pausing execution, whether hardware vs. software breakpoint, impact on existing breakpoints). With no annotations, more behavioral detail would be helpful, though the core action is clear.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value and earns its 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?
Given the tool is a simple, single-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It misses clarifying preconditions (e.g., debugger must be running) or disambiguation from the many sibling debugger and breakpoint tools, but the core purpose is clear.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter 'address'. It does so reasonably by stating the parameter expects a 'hex address or function name', adding meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, it could be more explicit about whether the address must be in the current binary or if it supports addresses from other contexts.
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 clearly states the action ('Set a breakpoint') and the target resource ('at an address'). It also specifies acceptable input formats ('hex address or function name'), which provides extra precision and distinguishes it from breakpoint-related siblings like delete_breakpoint, list_breakpoints, and enable_breakpoint.
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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to set a breakpoint), but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to related tools (e.g., start_debugger must be active, delete_breakpoint is for removal). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set the color of an instruction, function, or segment. Color is RGB as integer (e.g. 0xFF0000 for red, 0x00FF00 for green). item_type: instruction, function, segment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | Yes | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| item_type | No | instruction |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description partially carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates the tool is a write/mutation (setting a color) and explains the color format. However, it does not mention whether the change is reversible, what happens if the address is invalid, or if there are side effects like visual updates. The description is honest but lacks depth.
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?
The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value (purpose, color format, item types). It is efficient and avoids fluff. Minor improvement could be to combine the type list into the first sentence for even tighter structure.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (3 parameters, with defaults for one), the description covers the essential aspects: what it sets, the valid item types, and the color encoding. The existence of an output schema is mentioned in context signals, but not detailed; the description doesn't need to explain return values. The only gap is behavioral details about error handling, but for a simple setter, this is nearly complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains 'color' as RGB integer with examples, 'item_type' by listing allowed values (instruction, function, segment), and implies 'address' is the target. While 'address' lacks explicit explanation, the overall description adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, directly covering all parameters.
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 clearly states the tool sets the color of an instruction, function, or segment, specifying the color format as an RGB integer. It explicitly lists the three valid item types, leaving no ambiguity about what resource it operates on. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_color, rename_function, or set_comment.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_color for reading color, or other modification tools. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., address must exist or be valid) or when not to use it. Sibling tools cover a wide range of modifications, but no comparative context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set a comment at an address. Use is_repeatable=True for repeatable comments that propagate to xrefs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| comment | Yes | ||
| is_repeatable | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions that repeatable comments propagate to xrefs, but omits critical details: whether setting a comment overwrites an existing one, if there are permission requirements, any side effects on other data, or what the return value indicates. This lack of transparency is significant for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a key usage hint. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its 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?
For a three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and the optional parameter's behavior. However, it lacks information about overwriting semantics, the nature of the 'address' and 'comment' fields beyond their schema types, and any error conditions. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral gaps remain, making it minimally complete.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions), so the description must add meaning. It explains the 'is_repeatable' parameter's effect (propagation to xrefs), which adds value beyond the schema's boolean type. However, 'address' and 'comment' are left entirely to their schema titles, with no additional semantics (e.g., format, constraints, or examples). Partial compensation, but not sufficient for all three parameters.
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 clearly states 'Set a comment at an address,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_function_comment' (which targets functions) and 'get_comment' (which is read-only). The hint about 'is_repeatable' further sharpens purpose by indicating two comment variants.
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 explicitly tells when to set 'is_repeatable=True' for comments that propagate to xrefs. While it does not compare directly with sibling tools (e.g., 'set_function_comment'), the context of setting a comment at an address is clear enough to guide tool selection. No exclusionary guidance is given, but the core usage context is well-articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set a function-level comment. These appear above (anterior) or below (posterior) the function header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment | Yes | ||
| identifier | Yes | ||
| is_repeatable | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, the description does not disclose whether setting a comment overwrites an existing comment, requires special permissions, is reversible, or produces any side effects. It also does not mention authentication or rate limits.
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?
The description is concise at two sentences, quickly stating the purpose and placement. However, it is not front-loaded with the most critical information: the parameter semantics are missing. Each sentence earns its place, but adding key parameter details would improve structure without increasing length much.
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?
Considering the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, with no annotations, 0% parameter schema coverage, and moderate complexity (3 parameters including a boolean modifier), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and usage guidance, leaving gaps for the AI agent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description only explains the comment placement behavior but does not add meaning to the three parameters: 'identifier', 'comment', and 'is_repeatable'. For example, it does not specify how 'identifier' is used (e.g., function name or address) or what 'is_repeatable' means. However, given that the parameter count is low (3) and there is no nested objects, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: setting a function-level comment and specifies that the comment appears either above or below the function header. This is distinct from the sibling tools like 'get_function_comment' and 'set_comment', which operate on comments at different scopes.
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 implies that this tool is for setting function-level comments, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_comment' (which might set a comment at a different scope) or 'get_function_comment'. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set a function's type/prototype. Pass function name or address, and C-style prototype (e.g. 'int __cdecl func(int a, char *b)').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prototype | Yes | ||
| identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies the tool modifies the function's type (a mutation operation), which is consistent with the lack of 'readOnlyHint' annotations. It provides the specific prototype format expected. However, there are no annotations to contradict, and the description does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether the change affects global analysis, or any required permissions.
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?
The description is a single sentence with a supporting example, all front-loaded and essential. No wasted words; the example provides crucial formatting guidance without extra fluff.
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?
Given the tool is simple (2 required parameters, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. The example clarifies the prototype format. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that the function must already exist (e.g., from a prior analysis) and that the change is permanent.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'identifier' is a function name or address, and 'prototype' is a C-style prototype string. The description adds semantic meaning (e.g., 'C-style prototype' and the example) that is not present in the schema property titles alone.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: setting a function's type/prototype, specifying the identifier (name or address) and the C-style prototype string. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'rename_function', 'set_comment', or 'set_operand_type', which handle different aspects of function modification.
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 a clear example of the prototype format, which helps the agent understand how to construct the value. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_callee_type' or 'set_type', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., function must exist) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Change the type of a local variable in a decompiled function. Requires Hex-Rays. Pass C-style type (e.g. 'SOCKET', 'struct sockaddr_in *').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type_string | Yes | ||
| variable_name | Yes | ||
| function_identifier | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Change the type' implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects, persistence, error behavior, or authorization requirements. The prerequisite (Hex-Rays) is helpful but insufficient for a state-changing tool.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites and a concrete example. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation, 3 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema whose contents are unknown), the description is too minimal. It omits error conditions, required variable existence, scope details, and output interpretation. The agent would likely need to infer or experiment to use the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value for 'type_string' by specifying C-style format and giving examples. However, 'function_identifier' and 'variable_name' are not explained beyond their names, leaving ambiguity about their format (e.g., address vs name) and scope. The description partially clarifies but is incomplete.
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 clearly states the tool changes the type of a local variable in a decompiled function, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'rename_local_variable' or 'set_function_type' by mentioning 'local variable' and 'decompiled function', but could be more explicit about differentiation.
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 only mentions a prerequisite (Hex-Rays) and an example of the type string format. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_type' for global variables or 'set_function_type' for function signatures. No exclusions or context-specific advice is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Change how an operand is displayed. operand_num: 0 for first, 1 for second. display_type: hex, decimal, octal, binary, char, default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| operand_num | Yes | ||
| display_type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the change affects display only, implying it's non-destructive. However, it does not disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or whether changes persist to the database. The description is basic but not misleading.
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?
The description is very concise: two sentences that explain the purpose and parameter rules without any filler. Every sentence is necessary, and the structure front-loads the purpose.
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?
Given there are only 3 simple parameters and an output schema exists (which may handle return value documentation), the description covers the core parameter values. However, it omits details about the address parameter's format and does not mention persistence or error conditions. It meets the minimum but leaves gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains operand_num (0 for first, 1 for second) and display_type (hex, decimal, etc.), adding meaning for two parameters. However, 'address' is left unexplained, and the allowed values for display_type are listed without formal enum definition. This adds value but has gaps.
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 states a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('how an operand is displayed'), which clearly identifies the tool's action. The sibling tools include rename, set type, and comment operations, but none directly focus on operand display formats, so this description adequately distinguishes the tool.
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 implicitly explains when to use the tool (to change how an operand is displayed) but offers no guidance on when not to use it or explicit alternatives. With siblings like 'set_type' and 'set_function_type', there is potential confusion, but no exclusion is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Change the read/write/execute permissions of the segment containing the given address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| read | No | ||
| write | No | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| execute | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates this is a write operation (changing permissions), but it does not state whether permissions can be revoked, the scope of the change (persistent across sessions?), or error conditions (e.g., what happens if the address is invalid). It provides basic behavior but lacks depth.
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?
The description is a single, short sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff. It is efficiently structured for an AI agent to quickly parse, though it could benefit from a brief note on defaults.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, no enums, no schema description coverage, but an output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely documents return values, so that gap is filled. However, the description does not address edge cases (e.g., segment not found) or the order of operations (e.g., can all permissions be removed?). It is complete enough for common use cases but lacks depth.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'read/write/execute permissions' which maps to the boolean parameters 'read', 'write', and 'execute', adding some semantic context. However, it does not explain the 'address' parameter format or the effect of boolean defaults (all true implies at least one should be false to change). The description adds marginal value over the schema but does not fully clarify parameter roles.
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 clearly states the action ('Change'), the target resource ('the segment containing the given address'), and what permissions are affected ('read/write/execute'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_segments' (which lists segments) and 'create_segment' (which creates segments), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that changes affect segment-level permissions system-wide, or that other tools like 'patch_bytes' or 'make_data' might be more appropriate for specific use cases. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set the type at an address. Pass hex address and C-style type declaration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| type_str | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits directly. It states that setting a type is a mutation but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., type libraries), error conditions (e.g., invalid address), whether changes persist, or what the output looks like. This is insufficient for an agent to safely or correctly invoke the tool.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and immediately follows with the required input format. Every sentence earns its 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?
The description is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool, especially since an output schema exists to describe return values. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must the type be pre-defined?) and does not explain what 'set the type' means in terms of reverse engineering workflow (e.g., assigning a type to a data item vs. a function). This leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with IDA Pro.
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?
The schema provides parameter names with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful context: 'hex address' clarifies that the address should be in hexadecimal string format, and 'C-style type declaration' explains what type_str should contain. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'type at an address', specifying both the action and the target. It adds details about the required inputs ('hex address' and 'C-style type declaration'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_function_type or set_operand_type that operate on different scopes.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_function_type, set_operand_type, or set_local_variable_type. The description provides instructions on how to call it but does not clarify the context or exclude cases where other type-setting tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start the debugger for the currently loaded binary. Optionally pass command-line arguments and binary path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | ||
| path | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details. It does not state that starting the debugger may suspend or modify the current state, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the debugger is already active. The output schema exists but is not referenced to explain return values.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 14 words, front-loading the core action. Every word is necessary and there is no redundant information.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and the complexity of starting a debugger (which may have failure modes or state requirements), the description is too sparse. It lacks information about return values (likely a success indicator or debugger handle), error conditions, or state changes.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description says parameters are optional (args, path) but does not explain their format, purpose, or default behavior. This adds minimal value over the schema's property names and defaults.
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 clearly states the tool starts a debugger for the currently loaded binary, which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'set_breakpoint' or 'step_into' that operate within the debugger lifecycle.
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 mentions optional parameters (command-line arguments and binary path) but does not give guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'suspend_debugger' or 'exit_debugger'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., binary must be loaded) or that the debugger must not already be running.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Step into the next instruction (follows calls into functions).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the key behavioral trait of following calls into functions, which is essential. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like what happens if not currently in a debugger session, whether execution actually starts, or if this can be used while stopped at a breakpoint. The description is minimally adequate but lacks depth expected for a debugger action.
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?
The description is a single impactful sentence that front-loads the action and parenthetical context. Every word adds value, with no wasted space. This is an excellent example of conciseness given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema is present but not needed to explain, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is the lack of differentiation from sibling stepping tools, which is a minor omission for such a well-understood concept. For a debugger step-into command, the description covers the essential behavior adequately.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description correctly has nothing to explain about parameter meanings. Since schema description coverage is 100% (no params to cover), the baseline is 4 and the description need not add parameter information.
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 clearly states the action ('Step into the next instruction') and the key behavior ('follows calls into functions'), which defines the tool's scope well. However, it lacks differentiation from its sibling 'step_over', which would be important for an agent deciding between the two debugger stepping tools.
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 implies usage context as a debugger stepping command but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'step_over' or 'continue_execution'. The agent is left to infer from the description's mention of following calls that this is for stepping into function calls, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Step over the next instruction (executes calls without entering them).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning prerequisites (e.g., debugger must be running), side effects (execution state advances), or error conditions. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.
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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and behavioral distinction efficiently. No extraneous information.
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?
Given that this is a debugger step command with no annotations and an output schema (unprovided), the description fails to mention essential context: that the debugger must be active, that it advances execution, and what the output signifies. It is too sparse for a tool with behavioral complexity.
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?
There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description does not need to add param meaning since the schema already covers all (none). No additional value needed.
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 clearly states the action ('step over'), the resource ('next instruction'), and distinguishes it from stepping into calls via the parenthetical. This differentiates it from the sibling tool 'step_into'.
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 implies when to use it (over calls) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'step_into'. The parenthetical gives a hint but lacks direct guidance on conditional usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Suspend (pause) the running process.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While 'Suspend (pause) the running process' implies a state change, it does not describe side effects, whether the debugger UI updates, if registers are preserved, or if a subsequent continue/step can resume. Without annotations, this is insufficient transparency.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It fits the tool's simplicity perfectly, earning its place without any filler.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (not provided but inferred from context), the description meets basic completeness for a simple action. However, with over 80 sibling tools, a bit more context about when to pause versus step or continue would elevate completeness further.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to clarify parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline is 4 for 0-parameter tools, and the description adds minimal value ('pause' clarifies the action). No deduction is warranted.
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 uses the verb 'Suspend' and the resource 'running process', making the action clear. The parenthetical '(pause)' adds immediate comprehension, and given the sibling tools like step_into and continue_execution, it unambiguously distinguishes this tool as the debugger pause action.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as step_into, step_over, or continue_execution. With a large set of debugger control siblings, the lack of explicit usage context or exclusion notes makes it harder for an AI agent to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Switch the debugger's active thread. Pass the thread ID from list_debugger_threads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It correctly states the primary behavior (switching active thread) but omits important behavioral details: what happens if the thread ID is invalid, whether the debugger must already be started, or any side effects (e.g., changes to register view). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action, the second provides the parameter source. The structure is front-loaded and every word earns its place. Ideal for quick parsing.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, one action) and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose and parameter origin. However, it omits contextual prerequisites (e.g., debugger must be started, thread must exist). For a basic switch operation, this is nearly complete but could be more thorough.
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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying the parameter's source ('thread ID from list_debugger_threads'), which clarifies the integer's origin and validity. While this is helpful, it does not explain the format, range, or what the ID represents beyond the source hint.
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 clearly states the action ('Switch the debugger's active thread') and the resource (active thread). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_debugger_threads (which lists threads), step_into/step_over (execution control), and others. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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 provides explicit guidance: 'Pass the thread ID from list_debugger_threads.' This instructs the agent to first retrieve a valid ID from that specific sibling tool. However, it does not include when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., debugger must be running). The context is clear but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Undefine (delete) items at an address, reverting them to raw bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the outcome ('revert to raw bytes') but does not state whether this is destructive (data loss), whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens to references to the undefined item. The description is too brief for a mutation tool with no annotation support.
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?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices critical details for brevity, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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?
Given the tool has 2 parameters (one undocumented), no annotations, and an output schema that could describe return values, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke this tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'address' parameter (required) or the 'size' parameter (optional, default 1). The description only mentions 'items at an address', leaving the agent to infer that 'size' controls how many items to undefine, but with no clarity on units or behavior.
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 uses the verb 'Undefine (delete)' and specifies the resource as 'items at an address', with a clear outcome: 'reverting them to raw bytes'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'define_function' or 'make_code', though it could be more explicit about which types of items this applies to (e.g., functions, data, structs).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'undefine_function' or 'make_data'. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., address must contain a defined item) or situations where this might fail or be inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete/undefine a function at an address. The code remains but is no longer treated as a function.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clarifies that the code remains but is no longer treated as a function, which is useful behavioral context beyond a bare mutation notice. With no annotations provided, this is decent but could still detail side effects like relationship changes in cross-references or local variable handling.
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?
The description is two short sentences with essential information front-loaded. Every sentence contributes, but it could integrate parameter guidance more seamlessly without adding bulk.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter, a description, and an output schema, it lacks completeness on parameter format and any conditions that make the operation invalid (e.g., address not pointing to a valid function). The output schema existence slightly reduces the load, yet the description does not indicate what output to expect or error states.
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 0%, and the description does not describe the 'address' parameter beyond its type. The tool has only one required parameter and the description adds no format or semantic constraints such as whether it should be hexadecimal or decimal, leaving a gap for the agent to guess.
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 states it deletes/undefines a function at an address, which is specific verb+resource. But among siblings like 'define_function', 'rename_function', and 'disassemble_function', it does not clearly differentiate when to use undefine vs these, missing explicit sibling distinction.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'define_function' or 'get_function_info'. The description implies use for changing function status but no context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0add_bookmarkadd_watchpointapply_callee_typeapply_flirt_signaturecontinue_executioncreate_arraycreate_segmentcreate_structdecompile_functiondefine_functiondelete_bookmarkdelete_breakpointdelete_segmentdisassemble_functiondisassemble_rangeenable_breakpointexecute_idapythonexit_debuggerget_all_commentsget_analysis_statusget_binary_infoget_bytesget_colorget_commentget_debugger_statusget_exception_infoget_exportsget_flowchartget_function_calleesget_function_callersget_function_commentget_function_hashget_function_infoget_global_variablesget_importsget_local_variablesget_microcodeget_registersget_stack_frameget_stack_traceget_xrefs_fromget_xrefs_tolist_bookmarkslist_breakpointslist_debugger_threadslist_enumslist_flirt_signatureslist_functionslist_ida_actionslist_segmentslist_stringslist_structslist_type_librariesload_type_librarymake_codemake_datamake_stringnavigate_topatch_bytespingproduce_asmproduce_cread_debug_memoryrename_addressrename_functionrename_local_variablerun_ida_actionrun_idc_scriptsave_databasesearch_bytessearch_textset_breakpointset_colorset_commentset_function_commentset_function_typeset_local_variable_typeset_operand_typeset_segment_permissionsset_typestart_debuggerstep_intostep_oversuspend_debuggerswitch_threadundefineundefine_functionMost tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some overlap exists (e.g., set_comment vs set_function_comment, execute_idapython vs run_idc_script). The sheer number of tools (87) introduces some potential confusion, but descriptions generally clarify differences.
Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_functions, get_registers, set_breakpoint), which is consistent. Minor deviations like 'navigate_to' and the use of both 'list' and 'get' prefixes for similar operations (e.g., list_debugger_threads vs get_debugger_status) are acceptable but not perfectly uniform.
At 87 tools, the count is extremely high, far exceeding the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While IDA Pro is a complex tool, this many tools creates an overwhelming surface for agents, making selection and coordination difficult.
The tool set covers a vast range of IDA Pro functionality: decompilation, disassembly, debugging, patching, scripting, type libraries, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no conditional breakpoints, no register modification, no process attachment), but the surface is remarkably thorough for a single server.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Claude-powered AI tools: research, write, code, analyze, translate, debate, pitch, score, and more.
Code intelligence platform for AI agents. 20 tools for architecture, security & impact analysis.
AI Visibility and Content Intelligence tools for Claude and MCP-compatible agents.
Live SEO workflow tools for Claude Code, Codex, and AI agents.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/31Benzi/IDA-PRO-MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
