Add or update a comment at a specific address in a binary to document code and aid reverse engineering.
Add or update a comment at a specific address in the binary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Hex address (e.g. "0x08048000") | |
| comment | Yes | Comment text to add at the address | |
| binary_path | Yes | Absolute path to the binary file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation can both add and update an existing comment, but it does not explain side effects such as persistence, overwriting behavior, whether the binary file is modified, or any required permissions.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word is useful and there is no redundant content.
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?
The schema fully covers the required parameters and the tool is conceptually simple, so the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of behavioral context—especially whether the comment is stored as metadata or written into the binary—leaves an important gap for an agent deciding how to use the tool.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Add or update a comment at a specific address in the binary.' It clearly conveys what the tool does and is distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which are comment-related.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of whether comments are persistent metadata or modifications to the binary file itself. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context for invoking it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.