Create a named flag or label at a specified address to mark important locations in binary analysis, making code and data easier to reference during reverse engineering.
Create a flag/label at address (f name @ addr).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| size | No | ||
| address | Yes | ||
| session_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Create' but does not disclose whether this overwrites an existing flag, what happens on duplicate names, whether the operation is session-scoped, or what side effects occur.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It includes the operation, target, and a compact syntax example, making it appropriately sized for a short tool definition.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description should explain the optional size and session_id parameters and any behavioral constraints. It leaves significant gaps.
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 0%, with four parameters. The description names only 'name' and 'addr' through the CLI syntax, and adds no meaning for the optional 'size' or 'session_id' parameters. It does not compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 states a clear verb and resource: creating a flag/label at an address. This distinguishes it from the sibling list_flags and other tools, though it does not explicitly contrast the two. It is more than adequate but not maximally differentiated.
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 gives the CLI shorthand (f name @ addr) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_flags or other flag-related operations. It does not mention prerequisites, session requirements, or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.