elf_list_symbols

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden; "List" does imply a read-only enumeration, and naming both .symtab and .dynsym is genuinely informative about what is scanned. It does not disclose what the output looks like, how stripped binaries or missing symbol tables are handled, or whether results are ordered or limited.

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 no wasted words, and the key scope (which symbol tables) comes early. Brevity here borders on under-specification rather than padding.

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 two-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and data source. The remaining gaps—output shape and the kind filter—are modest for a tool of this simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so both path and the kind enum are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it never mentions the kind filter even though a kind parameter with an enum exists.

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 ("List") and resource ("symbols") and scopes it to the .symtab and .dynsym tables of a PS2 ELF binary, which is more precise than a generic "list symbols". It does not, however, explicitly separate itself from nearby siblings such as elf_find_function or elf_list_sections.

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 guidance on when to use this versus elf_find_function (lookup a single symbol) or elf_inspect (broader binary metadata). The listing intent is only weakly implied by the verb "List", and no exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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