pwndbg_retaddr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool scans the stack and prints addresses, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions (e.g., attached process), output format, or whether it modifies state. The source file and category info are not behavioral.

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: two short sentences for the core purpose, followed by source file and category. The main purpose is front-loaded. Minor trimming could be done (e.g., removing the redundant 'pwndbg command: retaddr' line), but overall it is 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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., requires a running debug session) and does not explain the output schema even though it exists. It is minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The only mention of the parameter is 'session_id: The UUID of the session' in the Args section, which adds little beyond the schema's type requirement. The description does not explain how session_id is used or where to obtain it.

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 prints stack addresses containing return addresses, with specific mention of scanning for pointers into executable regions and being useful for ROP pivot targets. This distinguishes it from siblings like pwndbg_stack which shows general stack content.

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 mentions the tool is 'useful for finding ROP pivot targets,' giving an implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like pwndbg_stack or pwndbg_telescope, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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