Read an ELF function's instruction sequence to inspect native code during Android reverse engineering. Use it to map a procedure to assembly and analyze logic.
Read the instruction sequence of an ELF function.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | No | ||
| procedure | Yes | ||
| 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?
The description says 'Read', implying a read-only operation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. The description also omits the side effect implied by analysis_project_id, which retains the tool result in an investigation. This directly contradicts the read-only framing and hides a mutation behavior.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with the key action front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is under-specified rather than maximally informative.
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?
With no output schema, three parameters, and a retention side effect, the description should do more. It omits parameter formats, return behavior, and when to prefer this over sibling tools.
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%, and the description adds no parameter meaning. It does not explain whether 'procedure' expects a name, address, or symbol, what 'document' refers to, or the side effect of analysis_project_id.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: read the instruction sequence of an ELF function. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not differentiate from siblings like procedure_assembly or procedure_pseudo_code, which likely also expose function-level code representations.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as procedure_assembly, procedure_pseudo_code, or inspect_native_instruction. An agent must infer usage from the name and sibling list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.