pwndbg_xinfo

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 states it shows info (read-only) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the address must be valid, what happens on error, or any side effects. The description is superficial regarding behavior.

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 reasonably concise, starting with a one-line summary followed by a brief expansion. The argument list is clearly separated. It could be slightly more streamlined, but it is well-structured and not overly verbose.

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 that an output schema exists (context indicates true), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it misses context like requiring a valid address in a running session, which is important for a debugging tool. The link provides additional info, but the description itself is marginally complete.

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 value by explaining both parameters: session_id as 'The UUID of the session' and address as 'Address to inspect (default: $pc).' This clarifies the default value beyond the schema's null default, though it could explain what $pc means.

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 purpose: 'Show extended information about an address — offsets from useful locations.' It further explains that it displays memory region and offsets. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vmmap or telescope, the purpose is specific and well-communicated.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., requires a running debug session), or when other tools might be more appropriate. This lack of usage guidelines leaves the agent without sufficient context for selection.

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