pwndbg_vmmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (memory regions) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. For a debugger command that prints information, it is likely safe, but the lack of explicit disclosure about behavioral traits (e.g., 'This command does not modify the process state.') is a gap.

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 a header, purpose, source details, and a parameter list. It includes a link to external documentation. While it is somewhat verbose, the information is organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. A slightly more concise explanation of filtering could improve it.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output format (start/end addresses, permissions, file names), and all parameters. Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), the explanation of return values is sufficient. The description is complete for understanding how to invoke and interpret the tool.

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's Args section explains each parameter (session_id, filter_str, writable, executable) with clear meanings. This adds significant value beyond the schema's default values and titles, helping an agent understand how to use the filters correctly.

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 'Print the virtual memory map of the process' and provides details on what it shows (start/end addresses, permissions, file names). It distinguishes vmmap from siblings like pwndbg_hexdump or pwndbg_search by focusing on memory region layout, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explains that results can be filtered by address, module name, or permission flags, and lists optional parameters for writable and executable filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when to use vmmap versus other memory analysis tools like pwndbg_telescope or pwndbg_hexdump, which could help an agent choose appropriately.

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