Generate the shortest unique AOB signature for an address by wildcarding RIP-relative and branch operands, ensuring reliable code location across game builds.
Shortest unique AOB pattern at addr, with RIP-relative and branch operands wildcarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addr | Yes | ||
| build | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses algorithm traits — the pattern is the shortest possible, must be unique, and RIP-relative/branch operands are wildcarded — which is real context. However it omits prerequisites, determinism, and what happens if no unique pattern exists at addr.
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 sentence with the key qualifiers (shortest, unique, addr) front-loaded and zero filler. Appropriately sized for a simple operation, though the terseness contributes to the missing context.
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?
The description conveys the core output concept (an AOB pattern), which partially substitutes for the absent output schema, but with no annotations, an undocumented build parameter, and no stated preconditions, an agent still lacks enough to invoke this correctly in all cases.
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 compensate. It clarifies 'addr' as the location at which the pattern is generated, but the 'build' parameter is never mentioned or explained in either the schema or the description, leaving half of the parameters undocumented.
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 ('make_signature') and defines exactly what is produced: the shortest unique AOB (byte pattern) at an address, with RIP-relative and branch operands wildcarded. This is precise for a reverse-engineering audience, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling scan_signature.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus scan_signature, or of prerequisites such as needing a loaded binary/module at the given address. The agent must infer usage context entirely from the one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.