Rename a function at a specific address in a binary to a custom name, making reverse engineering output clearer and easier to navigate.
Rename a function at the given address to a new user-defined name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Hex address of the function (e.g. "0x08048000") | |
| new_name | Yes | New name for the function | |
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the intended action but does not reveal whether the rename persists to disk, only affects the current analysis session, overwrites existing user names, or how invalid addresses are handled. This leaves important behavioral uncertainty for an agent.
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 with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies the target name. Every word earns its place.
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 tool is simple and all three parameters are fully documented in the schema, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not clarify return values, persistence, or failure behavior, leaving some context gaps. It is adequate for a straightforward mutation tool but not fully complete.
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 provides 100% description coverage, including the hex address format, the new name, and the absolute binary path. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema defines. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 and resource: 'renames a function at the given address' to a new user-defined name. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which handle listing, analysis, debugging, or comments rather than renaming. No ambiguity remains about the tool's core purpose.
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 implies the tool should be used when a function's name needs to be changed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or mentions of related tools like get_function_info or add_comment. Guidance is therefore adequate but relies on inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.