Inspect the active ELF load image to view mapped segments and sections, so you can analyze native library memory layout during Android reverse engineering.
Inspect the active ELF load image, mapped segments and sections.
| 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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds nothing about what 'active' means, whether an image must first be loaded via open_binary, or what happens when no image exists. There is also mild tension: the verb 'Inspect' reads as a pure read while readOnlyHint=false, and the description offers no clarification of what side effect (image loading?) justifies that flag.
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 no filler; it is efficient, though at the cost of the behavioral and usage detail the tool actually needs.
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?
Placeholder.
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 100%, so the single optional analysis_project_id is fully documented in the schema, including its retention caveat. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at this coverage level but nothing more.
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 ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('the active ELF load image, mapped segments and sections'), which is more informative than the bare tool name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as list_segments, which plausibly covers overlapping territory.
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 list_segments or inspect_native_instruction, and no preconditions stated (e.g. that a binary session must be open and an image loaded). The agent must infer the usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.