load_symbol_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions loading debug information and returning a confirmation, but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting previous symbols or requiring specific permissions. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 at 4 sentences, front-loading the main function and including an Args/Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary fluff.

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 the tool has a single optional parameter and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, parameter behavior, and return type. It is complete enough for effective use, though it could optionally mention symbol replacement behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains that 'elf_path' is the path to an ELF file and that an empty value uses the configured path. This is essential context beyond the schema's type and default.

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 verb 'Load' and the resource 'debug symbols from an ELF file', and specifies its purpose for source-level debugging. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_elf' or 'symbol_by_address' which serve different functions.

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 when to use the tool (to load debug symbols) and provides context by noting that if no path is given, it uses a configured path. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools imply it is a prerequisite.

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