pyocd_elf_address_to_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a symbol name with offset, which is adequate for a read-only lookup. However, it does not mention any dependencies (e.g., ELF must be attached) or error conditions for unmapped addresses. While the behavior is simple, more transparency would strengthen the score.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition. Highly efficient.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and an output schema (implied), the description covers purpose, usage, return format, and use cases. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand when and how to invoke it without additional context.

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 100% with a clear description of the 'address' parameter. The description adds slight context on typical usage (from PC, LR, stack) but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains the parameter well.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'resolve' and resource 'memory address to its symbol name', provides concrete use case ('interpreting PC, LR, and stack return addresses'), and specifies return format ('function name + offset'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pyocd_elf_symbols (list symbols) and pyocd_read_symbol (read by name).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Essential for interpreting PC, LR, and stack return addresses during debugging.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies other tools for listing or reading symbols. Slight room for improvement with explicit exclusions.

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