Convert a virtual address (VA) to a file offset for PE binary patching; automatically reads the PE header when image_base is omitted.
把 VA 虚拟地址换算为文件偏移（image_base 不传时自动读 PE 头）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| va | Yes | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| image_base | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that omitting image_base triggers automatic PE header reading, but it does not state the return format, error behavior for invalid PE files, or validation constraints.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with the key optional-parameter behavior in parentheses. Every part earns its place and there is no redundant text.
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 three-parameter conversion helper with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and image_base fallback. It still leaves out the return value and error conditions, so an agent has enough to attempt the call but not full context.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies va as a virtual address and explains image_base's fallback behavior, but file_path remains undocumented beyond its name, leaving partial compensation for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific verb and resource: converting a VA virtual address to a file offset, and it adds the image_base fallback. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling patch tools, but the operation is clear and unlikely to be confused with PE info, dump, apply, or text tools.
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?
Usage is implied by the conversion purpose: use it when a VA needs to become a file offset. However, the description gives no explicit when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool routing, so guidance is only minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.