dbgprobe.elf.symbols

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a default limit of 50 and optional filters, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only nature, state any side effects, or discuss authentication, rate limits, or output details. The information is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the essential information. Every part is necessary: the action, the resource, the optional filters, and the default limit. There is no redundancy or wasted 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and three of the four parameters (session_id is only mentioned implicitly). It does not describe the return format, error conditions, or pagination. While sufficient for basic understanding, it leaves gaps that could affect an agent's ability to fully interpret results or handle edge cases.

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 description adds value beyond the input schema by clarifying that the 'filter' parameter is case-insensitive and providing example type values ('FUNC, OBJECT, NOTYPE, etc.'). It also states the default limit of 50, which is not in the schema. Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params described), and the extra details justify a score above the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search or list ELF symbols.' It specifies the resource (ELF symbols) and the action (search or list). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dbgprobe.elf.lookup', which might have a similar but distinct purpose. The name and context imply listing multiple symbols, but lack of explicit distinction prevents a 5.

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. It does not mention situations where it should or should not be used, nor does it reference sibling tools. The only usage hints are the optional filters, but no context for choosing this over 'dbgprobe.elf.lookup' or others.

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