Enumerate memory segments in the active ELF analysis to inspect their addresses, sizes, and permissions.
List memory segments in the active ELF analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=false even though the description's verb 'List' reads as a pure read, and the description never explains the non-read-only aspect (results can be retained into an analysis project) or what happens when no active analysis exists. With idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false already covered structurally, the description adds no behavioral context of its own.
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 waste, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is redundant, yet almost nothing earns its place beyond naming the resource.
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?
For a two-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is thin but not misleading; the main gaps are the undocumented 'document' parameter and the missing note about needing an active ELF analysis to exist first.
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 only 50%: 'document' has no schema description and the description says nothing about it, so it is undocumented in both places. The 'analysis_project_id' retention semantics are also unaddressed, and 'active' is not clarified as to whether it selects the document implicitly.
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?
It gives a specific verb and resource ('List memory segments') scoped to 'the active ELF analysis', which distinguishes it from the many procedure/string/name listing siblings. There is no explicit sibling differentiation or explanation of what a 'segment' means here, but the object being listed is unambiguous.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an open binary session or analysis run is presumably required), and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the phrase 'active ELF analysis' that a binary/analysis context must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.