pwndbg_aslr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that setting state changes ASLR for the 'current debugging session', but omits potential side effects, persistence, or error conditions (e.g., invalid session_id).

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 fairly concise at 6 lines, front-loading the purpose. However, it includes redundant metadata (source file, category) that may not aid an AI agent, making it slightly less efficient.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema (present but not detailed), the description covers essential usage. It lacks return value details and behavior for invalid state values, but overall is adequate.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage, but the description adds critical meaning: it specifies that 'state' accepts 'on' or 'off' (optional). This compensates for the schema gap, though it could explicitly mention that only those two values are valid.

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 clearly states the tool checks or sets ASLR status, with specific verbs ('check', 'set') and resource ('ASLR status'). It distinguishes between query and mutation modes, and differentiates from over 100 sibling pwndbg tools.

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 explicitly explains when to run without arguments (to check) and with 'on'/'off' (to set), setting clear usage context. It does not, however, mention when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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