Resolve an ELF virtual address to its corresponding input file offset, helping map runtime or disassembly addresses back to bytes in the original binary.
Resolve an ELF virtual address to its input file offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| document | No | ||
| analysis_project_id | No | Optional investigation to retain this tool result in. Does not prove target identity or causal relationships. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't explain behavior when the address is unmapped, whether an open binary session is needed, or why readOnlyHint is false for an apparently pure lookup (presumably the analysis_project_id retention path).
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and both resources; nothing extraneous and no buried 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?
Three parameters, one required, no output schema and no annotations covering side effects, yet the description says nothing about session prerequisites, error cases for unmapped addresses, or what the returned offset looks like. For a lookup tool in a binary-analysis session it is under-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 only 33% and the description explains no parameters at all. In particular it never mentions the accepted second address form (module/namespace-prefixed 'name:0x...') permitted by the regex, nor the optional document/analysis_project_id arguments — exactly the gap the low coverage requires the prose to fill.
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 ('Resolve') and both ends of the transformation (ELF virtual address -> input file offset), which is precise about scope. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling map_native_address, which sounds like an adjacent capability an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 versus map_native_address or resolve_containing_procedure, and no prerequisites stated (e.g. whether an open binary/document session is required). The agent must infer all selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.