pwndbg_gotplt

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. It only indicates it prints information, but fails to disclose potential side effects or security considerations.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, source, category, and args. It includes a documentation link. It is somewhat verbose but overall 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no complex behavior), the description provides adequate context including what it does, the source, and a link. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds a clear explanation for the only parameter: 'session_id: The UUID of the session.' This adds value beyond the 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 it prints symbols from the .got.plt section and shows GOT/PLT entries with resolved values. While it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a specific section, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like pwndbg_got and pwndbg_plt.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. It only describes what the tool does.

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