rz_symbols

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful return-value detail ('is_imported flag, library origin, flagname, realname'). However, 'List all symbols' conflicts with the schema's default limit of 100, and there is no disclosure of pagination, error behavior, or read-only nature.

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 crisp sentences with the core action first, then return-value detail. No redundant phrases except possibly 'using Rizin', which adds context without bloating the description.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover parameters, pagination, and return shape more fully. It names some output fields but omits filter/imported_only behavior and the limit/offset semantics, leaving the call under-specified for a 5-parameter 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 coverage is only 60%; limit and offset lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and fails to mention that results are paginated/capped by limit, which is important given the 'all symbols' wording.

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 clear action and target ('List all symbols from the binary') and names the enriched output fields. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like list_imports or list_exports, though the focus on symbols is fairly specific.

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 about when to choose rz_symbols over list_imports, list_exports, or list_functions. The only comparison is to 'r2 isj', which is not among the siblings, so an agent gets no practical routing information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.