elf_list_sections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (addresses, sizes, permissions), but says nothing about whether the file must be a valid PS2 ELF, what happens on a non-ELF or non-PS2 input, or whether the operation is purely read-only.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the target platform, resource, and returned fields all appear immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does and what it returns, which is close to sufficient. The only real gap is failure behavior on invalid or non-PS2 ELF inputs.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Path to ELF binary'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no extra meaning about path format, relative vs absolute paths, or validation, 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sections') scoped to a PlayStation 2 ELF binary, which distinguishes it from elf_list_symbols and elf_inspect by resource type. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs section layout, but the description never states when to prefer it over elf_inspect or elf_list_symbols, nor any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives are offered despite several closely related ELF tools in the sibling list.

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