Storm Symbolize

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and the description adds that output includes a mapping plus confidence values. However, the verb 'Rewrite' sits in tension with readOnlyHint=true and the description never clarifies whether renames are persisted or merely proposed, which is precisely the ambiguity an agent needs resolved.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is good, but for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining critical gaps are the undocumented parameters and the read-only-vs-persisted rewrite ambiguity, neither of which the description resolves.

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% across 4 parameters (build, target, addr_kind, max_bytes), so the description carried the full burden and adds essentially nothing: no explanation of what 'target' points at, what build means, or when to choose va vs rva. Only the placeholder prefixes hint at the address space being worked on.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: rewriting FUN_/SUB_/DAT_ placeholders into Storm names. An agent knows exactly what class of operation this is, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from similarly-themed siblings like storm_map or storm_resolve.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., storm_map / storm_resolve). The agent must infer the trigger condition from the tool name alone.

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