gef_nearpc

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic function but omits critical details such as whether the session must be active, if the tool is read-only, potential errors (e.g., invalid PC), or what the output contains (e.g., disassembly text).

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 and front-loaded with the tool identity ('GEF: nearpc') followed by a parenthetical that explains the core function. Every word earns its place, though a bit more context would improve it.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values, prerequisites (e.g., must have a valid session), error conditions, or provide a usage example, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 meaning for the 'n' parameter by defining it as the number of instructions to look ahead. However, it provides no explanation for the 'session' parameter, which is required. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but misses the crucial session context.

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 ('look ahead N instructions from PC') and the resource (instructions from program counter). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling GEF tools like 'gef_registers' or 'gef_vmmap' by specifying its unique 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool is useful for examining upcoming instructions during debugging, nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'step_count' or 'read_memory'.

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