pwndbg_cyclic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral traits: generating unique N-byte subsequences, looking up values to find offsets, and optionally auto-detecting crash offsets from registers. It also notes default count and mutual exclusivity, which are important operational details.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes additional context (source, category, link) that, while not essential, does not detract. The parameter list is integrated naturally.

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?

Given a simple tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: generation, lookup, and auto-detection. It mentions mutual exclusivity but lacks error handling details. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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% description coverage, but the description adds meaning to each parameter: length (pattern length, mutually exclusive with lookup), lookup (value to find offset), detect (auto-detect from registers), count (default 100). This compensates for the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Generate or look up a cyclic (De Bruijn) pattern for offset calculation.' It specifies the unique property of the pattern and the actions it supports (generate and lookup), distinguishing it from other pwndbg tools like pwndbg_rop or pwndbg_search.

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 implicitly explains usage by describing the parameters and their mutual exclusivity (length vs. lookup), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned among the many sibling tools.

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