Convert a Relative Virtual Address (RVA) to a file offset in a PE file to locate and patch binary data during game modding.
Convert a Relative Virtual Address (RVA) to a file offset in a PE file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rva | Yes | RVA to convert | |
| file_path | Yes | Path to PE file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states nothing about error handling for invalid or out-of-range RVAs, whether the conversion assumes a mapped/loaded image, or any required permissions. For a no-annotation tool this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.
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 that states the operation, input, and output with zero filler. Perfectly sized for a simple conversion utility.
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 straightforward two-parameter deterministic conversion with no output schema, the core intent is fully conveyed. Its only shortfall is the absence of error/edge-case behavior, which matters somewhat since no annotations exist to cover it.
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% (both 'rva' and 'file_path' are documented in the schema), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or unit details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 ('Convert'), both the source and target resources ('Relative Virtual Address (RVA)' to 'file offset'), and the domain ('PE file'). It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name the inverse tool offset_to_rva in the sibling list.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the obvious alternative offset_to_rva, nor any prerequisites such as whether the PE file must be loaded first. The usage is only implied by the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.