pwndbg_sigreturn

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

The description indicates a read-only display operation ('Parses and displays'), but with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or other behavioral traits like required permissions or side effects. Lacks depth on what happens if address is invalid or missing.

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 with a clear first sentence followed by relevant metadata (source, category, arch, link). Some information like file path and category is extraneous but not excessive.

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 display tool with an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core functionality adequately. It mentions the purpose, parameter details, and provides a documentation link, though it could briefly state the output format or note that it's a view-only operation.

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 description adds meaning to the 'address' parameter ('default: auto-detect'), which is not in the schema (0% coverage). However, the required 'session_id' parameter is left unexplained, so the compensation is partial.

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 action: 'Display the SigreturnFrame at a specific address.' and provides context about SROP exploits, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pwndbg_malloc_chunk or pwndbg_heap.

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 implies usage for viewing sigreturn frames in SROP analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or context for when to auto-detect address vs. providing one.

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