Reads the current ELF session state to inspect native library analysis without launching a provider.
Read the active ELF session state without starting a provider.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them — that no provider is started as a side effect — but omits what happens when there is no active session (empty result vs. error).
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word carries information. It is efficient, though the same terseness leaves gaps elsewhere in the definition.
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?
Read-only, no output schema, and a single fully-documented optional parameter — a simple tool, so modest description is defensible. But with no output schema the description is the only place to say what 'session state' actually returns, and it does not.
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 single optional parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including its regex pattern and the caveat that it does not prove target identity, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about analysis_project_id, which is acceptable at full coverage but yields only the baseline.
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 ('Read') and resource ('active ELF session state'), and the qualifier 'without starting a provider' implicitly separates it from open_binary/close_binary. It stops short of naming a sibling, and 'session state' is never unpacked into the fields an agent would expect.
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 'without starting a provider' implies the usage condition (checking session state cheaply, without lifecycle side effects), but it never states when to call it versus open_binary, nor what to do if no session exists. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.