get_current_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing: not what 'current' means (current instruction pointer? current session's address?), not whether session_id defaults to the active session, and not whether the result is state-dependent on a paused debugger. This is a bare label, not a behavioral description.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally fine. However, the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency, so it cannot score higher.

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-format explanation is not required, but the description still leaves the core ambiguity unresolved: what entity 'current address' refers to and how session scoping works. For a state-query tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, this is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 single session_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — not that it is optional, not that omitting it targets the active session, not its type or format. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap entirely.

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 is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name ('get_current_address' → 'Get current address'), adding no scope, verb nuance, or resource detail. It does not distinguish this tool from the many other getters in the sibling list (get_registers, get_binary_info, get_entrypoint).

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternative named. An agent has no way to know whether this is a debugger-state query (program counter) or something else, nor when to prefer it over reading registers or disassembly.

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