List all exported functions and symbols with addresses and types from a given binary, enabling quick identification of available entry points and API surface.
List all exported functions and symbols with their addresses and types.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (0-based) | |
| 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation and the description discloses what is returned, but it does not clarify that 'all' may be constrained by the limit/offset pagination parameters, nor does it mention whether the binary must already be loaded or analyzed. It is acceptable but not richly transparent.
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 communicates the core purpose and output details efficiently without wasting words.
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 listing tool with a required binary_path and optional pagination parameters, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what information it returns. There is no output schema, but 'addresses and types' gives a sufficient hint at the result shape. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from related listing tools, which is more a usage-guidance issue than a completeness issue.
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%, so the schema already explains binary_path, limit, and offset effectively. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond the overall tool purpose, which matches the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all exported functions and symbols'), and specifies the returned data ('addresses and types'). It is understandable and specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_functions or list_imports.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_imports, list_functions, or rz_symbols. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.