List all calling conventions for a binary's architecture to understand function signatures and ABI details.
List all calling conventions available for the binary architecture using Rizin afcl. Useful for understanding function signatures and ABI details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the reference to 'Rizin afcl' gives a concrete mechanism, but it does not disclose output format, prerequisites, or potential side effects. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the secondary utility statement is concise and informative.
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 low-complexity list operation with one well-documented parameter, the description is largely complete. It could mention whether analysis must be run first or what the returned items look like, but these are minor for this 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single binary_path parameter, which is fully described as 'Absolute path to the binary file'. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a precise action ('List all calling conventions') and the resource (binary architecture) plus the underlying mechanism (Rizin afcl). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which mention calling conventions.
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?
Provides context on why this tool is useful ('understanding function signatures and ABI details') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Since no sibling overlaps with this function, the contextual cue is sufficient for a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.