pwndbg_got

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

The description discloses the tool's behavior: it displays GOT entries with current values, indicating unresolved vs resolved entries. This is basic behavioral info, but no annotations are provided to supplement. It does not detail output format or side effects, though an output schema exists.

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 at a few sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It includes source and category info which may be extraneous but not wasteful. Overall efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description is fairly complete. It explains the functionality, parameters, and provides a reference link. It doesn't cover return values, but the output schema handles that.

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 provides parameter meanings: session_id (UUID required) and filter_str (optional filter). This adds significant value beyond the raw schema, though it could be more specific about filter string syntax.

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 explicitly states 'Show the state of the Global Offset Table' and elaborates on displaying GOT entries with resolved/unresolved status. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool pwndbg_gotplt, which likely has a similar purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pwndbg_gotplt or other memory inspection tools. The description implies use for examining GOT resolution, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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