list_names

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

The description contributes the scoping fact that it operates against the currently active ELF analysis, which annotations do not convey. It does not disclose result size, ordering, pagination, or what happens with the address/document filters, and there is mild tension between the read-flavored verb "List" and readOnlyHint=false — though that is a property of the annotations rather than a contradictory claim in the text.

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 zero filler. It is efficient, but the brevity is the same brevity that leaves the filters and usage unaddressed, so it is concise without being quite well-proportioned to the tool's actual complexity.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotation detail on returns, yet the description never explains what a symbol name record looks like, whether results are paginated, or how address/document narrow the listing. For a filtered enumeration tool the agent lacks the information needed to use it confidently.

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% — just analysis_project_id is documented — and the description says nothing about any of the three parameters. The semantics of the address filter (pattern accepts hex or module+offset) and document scoping are entirely opaque from the text, leaving the agent to infer behavior from raw regex patterns.

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 (list) and resource (symbol names) scoped to "the active ELF analysis", which an agent can understand without opening the schema. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as address_name, list_strings, or list_procedures, so the agent must guess which name-listing tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open binary session), and no named alternative for the overlapping address_name / list_procedures tools. The only contextual cue is the phrase "active ELF analysis", which implies a session must already exist.

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