address_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Return') and enumerates the response contents, giving the agent a good sense of what to expect. It does not mention error handling, permission requirements, or edge cases, but for a lookup tool this is 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?

The description is concise: a one-sentence purpose statement, a list of response components, and clear parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence adds value with 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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers both inputs and the output structure (though an output schema exists). It explains the response components and parameter formats. It lacks details on error cases or behavior when the target is not found, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this need.

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 fully explain parameters. It does: 'target' is defined as an address, exact label name, or exact function name; 'program' is defined as the required Ghidra project path or name. Both parameters are clearly documented, exceeding what the schema 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 clearly states the tool returns address context in one lookup, listing the specific components included (resolved address, memory block, symbols, function, instruction, data, references). This distinguishes it from siblings like decompile or xrefs by positioning it as a comprehensive single-call lookup.

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 phrase 'in one lookup' implies the tool is intended for when comprehensive address context is needed, suggesting it as an alternative to making multiple focused calls (e.g., xrefs for references). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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