procedure_address

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds nothing beyond purpose: it doesn't note that this is a non-executing static lookup, whether the target binary must be open first, or what happens when the name/address is ambiguous or absent. Note the tension with readOnlyHint=false, which suggests a mutating operation while the description reads as a pure query.

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 tight sentence with no filler and the key operation front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness is part of why the parameter gaps remain unfilled.

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 3-parameter tool with one-third schema coverage and no output schema, the description is under-specified: it does not clarify the document parameter or accepted input forms, nor does it state the shape of the result beyond 'entry address'. The tool name/description alone leave real call-time uncertainty.

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 33%: only analysis_project_id carries a schema description. The description does not say whether 'procedure' takes a bare symbol name, a mangled name, a hex address, or which syntax is accepted, and it never explains the 'document' parameter (which binary/session to resolve against). With the majority of parameters undocumented in both places, the description should compensate and does not.

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 and resource (resolve procedure name/address to entry address) and constrains the domain to ELF binaries. It is clear on its own, but does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as address_name (the inverse mapping), procedure_info, resolve_containing_procedure, or map_native_address, so an agent must guess at the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The agent is not told whether to reach for this rather than address_name, procedure_info, or resolve_containing_procedure when it has a name and wants an address.

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