resolve_method_rva

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details internal operations (walking tables, parsing binary), handles both stripped and non-stripped cases, and mentions an optional dependency. It does not cover all failure modes but provides good 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 well-structured with a summary line, process explanation, return scenarios, dependency note, and args list. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value, though could be slightly shorter.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains return values (rva_status, mangled name) and covers input and logic. It is fairly complete for the tool's complexity, though exact output format is not specified.

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%, but the description includes an 'Args' section with brief explanations for each parameter, including the format of method_fqn. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type 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 explicitly states 'Resolve a method FQN to its GameAssembly.dll RVA.' It clearly identifies the specific resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list or search 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 explains what the tool does and mentions a related sibling tool (re-rizin.search_bytes) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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