binary.symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lacks any mention of side effects (should be read-only), possible error states (e.g., invalid session_id), performance implications of pagination, or what the output format looks like (list of objects?). The description is too brief to be transparent.

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?

Extremely short at 4 words, which is efficient but comes at the cost of completeness. Not front-loaded with enough information to be useful. A slightly longer description would earn a higher score.

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?

This tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, operating in a rich sibling context (symbols-related tools like annotation.rename_symbol, binary.functions). The description is far too minimal to let an agent understand its prerequisites, behavior, or return format. It needs at minimum: 'List symbol names and addresses from the binary associated with session_id, with optional pagination via limit (max N) and offset.'

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter roles. It does not mention that session_id is required to identify which binary's symbols to list, nor does it explain limit/offset mechanics (e.g., default values, maximum, or how pagination behaves). The description adds no value beyond the schema's property names.

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 'List symbols with pagination' uses a clear verb ('list') and resource ('symbols'), and adds the scope ('with pagination') hinting at the limit/offset parameters. However, it does not clarify what kind of symbols (user-defined vs. all) or whether it's for a specific binary, making it only minimally distinguishable from tools like binary.sections or binary.strings.

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 usage context is provided—no when to use, when not to use, prerequisites (e.g., requires an open binary session), or alternatives among the many sibling tools like binary.functions or search.text. The pagination hint is implied by the parameters but not explicitly stated as a recommendation for large results.

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