patch.always_branch

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool patches (mutation) and is conditional on support, but does not describe what happens on failure (error/no-op), whether the change is reversible, how the instruction is modified (e.g., condition always true vs. unconditional jump), or any side effects like size changes. Minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and a constraint. It earns its place without verbosity. However, it could be more precise (e.g., 'always branch' is ambiguous between unconditional jump and forcing condition true), slightly reducing clarity.

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 complexity of a patching tool (binary modification, interaction with a session), the description omits crucial details: expected return values, error handling on unsupported branches, how to specify the address (absolute/relative), and whether modifications persist. An agent lacks context to invoke this tool confidently without external knowledge.

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% and the description adds no meaning to the two parameters. 'address' and 'session_id' are not explained; their types (integer/string) do not clarify usage (e.g., address of branch to patch or target? Absolute or relative?). The description fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's action (patch) and the target resource (conditional branch), specifying the outcome (always branch). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch.never_branch and patch.invert_branch, though it could be more explicit about what 'always branch' means (e.g., convert to JMP).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch.never_branch or patch.invert_branch. The phrase 'when supported' hints at a prerequisite but does not explain how to verify support or what to do if unsupported. Lacks explicit recommendations or exclusions.

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