resolve_containing_procedure

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false despite this reading as a pure lookup, which is a surprising safety profile that the description does nothing to explain (does it open or attach a session?). Nothing is said about failure behavior for addresses outside any procedure, which ELF image is consulted, or how the document parameter scopes resolution. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this adds almost no behavioral context.

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, which is good, but the brevity crosses into under-specification for a tool with three parameters and a non-obvious readOnlyHint. Concise but not adequately sized.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more weight on return shape (function name? range? symbol?) and on which document is targeted. Given a three-parameter tool with a non-readOnly annotation and a complex address grammar, one sentence leaves key operational questions unanswered.

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 33%: only analysis_project_id carries a description. The 'address' parameter accepts a rich pattern (raw hex or a module:offset form like libfoo.so:0x1234) and the 'document' parameter defaults to null with no explanation of which binary is chosen when omitted. The description supplies none of this, so the two undocumented parameters remain opaque.

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+resource: 'Find the ELF function containing an address.' The word 'containing' signals this is the inverse of a function-to-range lookup, which distinguishes it from siblings like address_name or procedure_info. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the scope (ELF function containing an address) 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus address_name, map_native_address, or procedure_info, all of which deal with addresses. No prerequisites (must a binary be open? must the address be inside a loaded image?) and no statement about what happens when the address falls outside any function. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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