symbol_by_address

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 discloses a fuzzy match behavior ('at or near'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention side effects or permissions.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by a clear structure for arguments and returns. No extraneous words are present.

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 essential behavior of the tool: input format and output expectation. While there is an output schema available (not shown), the description's mention of 'Symbol name at or near the given address' is sufficient for a simple lookup tool. Minor gaps in edge cases (e.g., if address not found) are acceptable.

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 no description for the 'address' parameter. The description adds significant value by specifying the format ('hex string') and giving an example, which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'look up' and the resource 'debug symbol by its address' to obtain the symbol name. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'symbol_by_name' which looks up by name.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or context for choosing between 'symbol_by_address' and 'symbol_by_name', leaving the agent without decision support.

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