Convert a runtime memory image into a file-aligned PE by performing Scylla-style unmapping, enabling reverse engineers to analyze dumped process memory as a standard binary.
Rebuild a file-aligned PE from a runtime memory image (Scylla-style unmap).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| out | Yes | ||
| dump_path | Yes | ||
| image_base_guess | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the nature of the transformation (unmapping a runtime image into a file-aligned PE, Scylla-style), which is meaningful context. However it omits side effects, whether it writes the output file or mutates inputs, and failure conditions.
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?
A single dense, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every clause contributes specification.
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 specialized reversing operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description covers intent but not the parameters or behavioral details an agent needs. Adequate at the minimum viable level given the Scylla jargon is meaningful to the audience.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Runtime memory image' loosely implies dump_path and 'file-aligned PE' implies the out target, but image_base_guess is entirely unexplained and no parameter meaning is added explicitly.
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 specific verb (rebuild) and resource (PE) plus the transformation context (file-aligned from a runtime memory image via Scylla-style unmap). This is clearly distinct from trim_pe or rebuild_imports, though it does not explicitly name those siblings to route the agent.
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 phrase 'from a runtime memory image' implies the workflow (run/dump then rebuild), but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance. Usage must be inferred from the domain jargon.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.