Resolve a PE or ELF entry point to its file offset and virtual address, then disassemble from there to inspect where execution begins.
Resolve a PE or ELF entry point to its file offset and virtual address, then disassemble from there. The fastest way to see where execution begins.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| count | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the resolution step and default count, but says nothing about error handling on malformed/non-PE-non-ELF files, whether the format is auto-detected, or the kind of disassembly output returned. A read-only, non-destructive operation can be inferred, but it is not stated.
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 verb and resource, zero filler. The one-liner value proposition at the end is a good routing cue.
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 2-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema explanation, the description covers the core flow (resolve, then disassemble) but omits error behavior, format auto-detection, and output shape. It is adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of structured support.
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 define 'path' (file vs directory, binary format detection) or 'count' (default 80 is in the schema but no description of what it counts – lines, instructions, bytes). With zero schema descriptions, more compensation is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (disassemble) and resource (entry point) with format specificity (PE or ELF) and explicitly names the outputs (file offset, virtual address). It distinguishes itself from the generic 'disassemble' sibling by scoping to entry-point resolution.
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 fastest way to see where execution begins" is a strong usage signal that implies this is the preferred first step, but it doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when you already have a target address – use disassemble instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.