Locate a function by virtual address in a PlayStation 2 ELF binary using the binary path and hex or integer address for targeted reverse engineering.
Locate a function by virtual address within a PS2 ELF binary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to ELF binary | |
| address | Yes | Virtual address in hex or integer (e.g. 0x00100400) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the lookup uses symbol tables or heuristics, not what happens when the address falls inside a function versus at its entry, and not what is returned. Only the read-only nature is implied by 'locate'.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier (by virtual address, PS2 ELF) is front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it omits information the tool needs.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a successful lookup yields (function name, bounds, symbol entry) and how failure is signaled. For a binary-analysis lookup tool, omitting the return shape leaves a significant gap.
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 100% and the schema already explains both 'path' and the hex-or-integer 'address' format. The description adds no semantic detail beyond restating that the address is virtual, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: locate a function by virtual address in a PS2 ELF binary. The address-based lookup distinguishes it implicitly from symbol-listing siblings like elf_list_symbols, but it never names an alternative, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as elf_list_symbols or mips_analyze_function. An agent must guess that this is the right tool when it already holds a virtual address.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.