List all local variables, stack variables, and arguments of a function to identify its inputs and stack usage.
List all local variables, stack variables, and arguments of a function.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No | Hex address of the function (e.g. "0x08048000") | |
| binary_path | Yes | Absolute path to the binary file | |
| function_name | No | Name of the function (e.g. "main") |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read-only listing operation but does not disclose dependencies such as debug symbols, behavior when no matching function is found, or whether prior analysis is required. The word 'all' is an unqualified promise that may not hold.
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 sentence with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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 description is incomplete for practical invocation: binary_path is required, but address and function_name are optional, and the description does not clarify that at least one of these should identify the target function. There is no output schema and no behavioral context, so an agent may call the tool with only binary_path and receive an error.
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 documents address, binary_path, and function_name adequately. The description adds no additional meaning, such as how the optional parameters relate to function selection, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the 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 uses a specific verb (list) with a specific resource (local variables, stack variables, and arguments) scoped to a function. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_functions and get_function_info.
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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no exclusions or context notes. The description does not mention that the function must be identified by address or function_name, nor does it reference any sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.