List string literals referenced by a single function using its address or name, returning up to 100 rows for reverse engineering analysis.
List the string literals one function references as site string_va text rows, at most 100. Not for finding a text's functions (use find_function_by_string).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Entry, any address inside it, or a name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior by disclosing the return shape ('site string_va text' rows) and a hard result cap of 100. It does not say how the cap is enforced (truncation vs. error) or what ordering applies, which keeps it below a 5.
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, no filler, with the positive capability and output shape front-loaded and the exclusion second. Every clause carries information an agent needs to select and call it.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the output format and the result bound, which is the main missing structured information. The only gap is unspecified ordering/truncation behavior at the 100-row boundary, which is minor for this tool's complexity.
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?
There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'Entry, any address inside it, or a name'; the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is correct where the schema does all the parameter work.
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 and resource ('List the string literals one function references'), gives the exact row shape 'site string_va text', and caps the result at 100. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not, so the agent can distinguish it from find_function_by_string without opening either schema.
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 second sentence gives an explicit negative case ('Not for finding a text's functions') paired with the exact alternative to use ('use find_function_by_string'). That is a clean when-not plus redirect, leaving nothing for the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.