EDB Debugger MCP

by oakkaya

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.2.4
Disambiguation3/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple disassembly, stepping, and memory writing tools), but the descriptions and prefixes (edb_ vs pwntools_) help differentiate them. Still, an agent may struggle to choose the right tool among 207 options.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear 'edb_' or 'pwntools_' prefixes. The naming is predictable and uniform, making it easy to infer tool purpose.
Tool Count1/5
With 207 tools, the server is far beyond the typical scope for an MCP server. This overwhelming count likely leads to agent confusion and inefficiency, with many highly specialized tools that could be merged.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is extremely comprehensive, covering virtually all aspects of debugging: breakpoints, stepping, memory manipulation, analysis, ROP, pwntools integration, remote debugging, and session management. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.
Average 3.8/5 across 207 of 207 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 86 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 8, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'modify' but the annotation readOnlyHint is true, creating a contradiction. No further behavioral details are given, such as side effects, persistence, or permission requirements. Agents are misled about mutability.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but lacks structure (e.g., no separate 'view' vs 'modify' guidance). Important details are missing, so it is under-specified rather than efficiently lean.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the contradiction with annotations and the lack of output schema details (though output schema exists, it's not referenced), the description fails to fully inform the agent about what this tool does and what to expect. For a tool that can modify state, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameter fields but adds no extra meaning beyond the input schema descriptions. Schema coverage is 0% per context signals, yet the description does not compensate with elaboration on parameter formats, defaults, or behavior when omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool views or modifies pwntools global context, listing specific fields (arch, os, endian, log_level). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pwntools_arch or pwntools_log_level by being a combined context viewer/modifier. However, the readOnlyHint annotation contradicts the 'modify' aspect, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like pwntools_log_level or pwntools_arch. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims the tool can 'set' a bit, but the annotation readOnlyHint=true indicates it is read-only. This contradiction misleads the agent about whether the tool modifies state. Additionally, no details about side effects, permissions, or response format are given despite the low annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It would benefit from organizing information about parameters and usage patterns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete due to the contradiction with annotations. It does not explain the return value format or clarify the ambiguous 'set' behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not add parameter information beyond the input schema, which already has clear descriptions for all three parameters (bit, value, set_to). With full schema coverage, the description does not need to repeat, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets or sets a specific bit in an integer, which is a distinct action from sibling tools like pwntools_rol or pwntools_ror. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or provide additional differentiating context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Generate shellcode'. It does not disclose traits like platform dependencies, shellcode size limits, or that output format is raw bytes. With annotations, the bar is lower, but adding zero behavioral detail still warrants a low score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (single sentence), but it lacks necessary details, making it feel under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It is front-loaded with the verb, but could benefit from a brief elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the tool's full capacity. It does not mention that the generated shellcode is for exploitation contexts, that it can handle multiple architectures, or how 'args' and 'purpose' interact. The tool has moderate complexity (3 params) but the description provides almost no contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description must explain parameters. However, the description ignores all parameters (arch, args, purpose). It provides no insight into valid values, defaults, or how to specify shellcode type. This leaves the agent entirely dependent on the input schema's descriptions, which are present in the JSON but flagged as uncovered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Generate shellcode') and identifies the specific module ('pwntools shellcraft'). Among sibling tools like pwntools_asm and pwntools_flat, this one is uniquely for shellcraft shellcode, effectively distinguishing its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pwntools_asm for custom assembly, pwntools_flat for packing). There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or when to avoid this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it writes to the binary file on disk, which aligns with those hints. However, it does not disclose whether the original file is overwritten or backed up, what happens to the modifications if output_path is left default, or if the tool requires specific permissions. Given the annotations, the description adds minimal extra behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence of 10 words, which is very concise. It immediately conveys the core function. However, it could benefit from a slight restructure to include key context without sacrificing brevity, such as noting the optional output_path parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool (destructiveHint=true) with one parameter and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'runtime memory modifications' refers to, how they are accumulated, or the impact of using the default output_path. Important context like reversibility, prerequisite steps, and relationship to other patching workflow tools is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description does not mention the only parameter 'output_path'. The schema provides a description for this parameter, but the description adds no additional meaning or usage context. With schema description coverage at 0% (tool description ignores parameters), the description fails to clarify how to use the parameter effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Write runtime memory modifications back to the binary file on disk' clearly states the action (write) and the resource (binary file). It implies persisting in-memory patches to disk, which distinguishes it from tools that only modify memory (edb_write_memory) or dump raw memory (edb_dump_memory_to_file). However, it could be more specific about what 'runtime memory modifications' encompasses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 edb_patch_history or edb_write_memory. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflow (e.g., after modifying memory), or when not to use it. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description contradicts annotations: readOnlyHint is true suggesting no modification, but destructiveHint is true suggesting destruction. The description does not resolve this or disclose actual behavior (e.g., whether it modifies memory or just generates a payload). This contradiction severely harms transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. There is no extraneous text, and it is well-front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex (ROP chain construction), but the description omits critical details such as return format, side effects, or prerequisites. While an output schema exists, the lack of behavioral context (e.g., does it write to the binary?) and the contradictory annotations leave the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the tool description does not cover parameters, the input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (path, target, args). The schema itself supplies sufficient meaning for an agent to understand param roles, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate despite no added value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool builds a ROP chain to call a target function with arguments. It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like pwntools_find_rop which find gadgets rather than building chains. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for use. It assumes the agent knows when a ROP chain is needed, leaving the agent without explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'save' and 'for later comparison' but does not disclose storage details, side effects, or limitations. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds little beyond that. It fails to mention whether snapshots are stored in memory, disk, or temporary, or if there is a limit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 9 words, efficiently stating the action and purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of many sibling snapshot and state tools, the description lacks crucial details on how the snapshot is used for later comparison, what the output contains, and the role of the label parameter. Though simple, it omits expected context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The one parameter 'label' has a description in the schema ('Snapshot label (default: auto timestamp)'). The tool description does not mention the parameter, so schema coverage is effectively provided by the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning, earning the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Save a full debugger snapshot (registers + memory) for later comparison.' It specifies the verb, resource, and purpose. However, the tool name 'edb_compare_snapshot' could imply comparison, while the description says save, causing minor confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools for saving state (e.g., edb_export_state, edb_dump_state), there is no differentiation or context for choosing this snapshot save.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on side effects, such as the need to close the tube or potential errors. Minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about return values, error handling, or resource management. For a destructive tool that spawns a process, more details are needed for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes descriptions for all four parameters (binary, args, timeout, tube_id). The tool description adds no additional semantic value, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool starts a local process for interaction, specifying verb 'Start', resource 'local process', and context 'pwntools tube'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pwntools_remote, which handles remote connections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., pwntools_remote for remote connections or other tube tools). The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states the tool executes any raw GDB command, which can be destructive (e.g., write memory), contradicting the annotation readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, it does not disclose potential side effects like debugger crashes or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the action ('Execute any raw GDB command directly') and avoiding unnecessary words. Every sentence adds meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks critical context for a powerful, open-world tool. It does not explain when to use it over specific sibling commands, warn about destructive potential, or clarify output behavior beyond what the output schema provides. Given the complexity, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters: 'command' includes examples, and 'timeout' explains its purpose. The tool description adds no further semantic value, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute any raw GDB command directly.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., edb_get_registers, edb_set_breakpoint) by offering unrestricted CLI access, making it a catch-all for commands not covered by specific tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'Powerful for advanced debugging,' which implies usage but lacks explicit guidance or context for when specific sibling commands should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about searching functions and variables, but doesn't elaborate on the return format or any potential limitations beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes an args/returns block that duplicates the schema, making it slightly redundant. It could be more concise by removing this block.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior. It could mention that it returns a string of reference locations, but that is already stated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description's param details largely repeat the schema's description for the address parameter, adding no new constraints, format details, or examples. With schema description coverage at 0%, more value should have been added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds code references to an address or symbol, using specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like edb_get_function_xrefs or edb_string_references.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use edb_get_function_xrefs instead. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: true, as 'generate' implies creation, not a read operation. Additionally, no behavioral traits beyond the annotations are disclosed, such as the output format or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words, though it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal, but the presence of a detailed input schema and an output schema partially compensates. However, it lacks essential context about format string exploitation and the return value, making it only moderately complete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the schema descriptions cover all parameters well, the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is effectively 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'generate a format string exploit payload for arbitrary writes', using a specific verb and resource that directly aligns with the tool's name and function. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pwntools_build_rop_chain or pwntools_shellcraft.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a format string vulnerability is present versus other exploit techniques. No context on prerequisites or typical scenarios is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description 'compile assembly code into an ELF binary' aligns with destructiveHint but contradicts readOnlyHint=true from annotations. No disclosure of file overwrite behavior or side effects beyond creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but overly brief; lacks front-loading of key details like output behavior or integration with pwntools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite output schema existing, description omits important context like supported architectures beyond those in schema, error handling, or relation to sibling tools. Incomplete for a compilation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already covers all three parameters (arch, code, output) with descriptions and defaults. Description adds no additional param semantics, meeting baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Compile' and resource 'assembly code into an ELF binary', distinguishing it from siblings like pwntools_asm (raw bytes) and pwntools_elf_* (existing ELFs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 pwntools_asm or pwntools_elf_patch. Does not provide when-not or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'close' is consistent. It adds the 'active' qualifier, hinting the tube must be open. No additional behavioral details beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but too terse. It lacks important details that could be added without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate for purpose but fails to explain parameters or usage context, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description ignores the 'tube_id' parameter entirely. With 0% schema description coverage, the burden on the description is high, yet it provides no explanation of what 'tube_id' means or how 'last' works.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Close an active tube connection' clearly states the action (close) and resource (tube connection), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pwntools_tube_recv or pwntools_tube_send by focusing on termination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to close the tube, prerequisites (e.g., tube must be open), or alternatives. Sibling tools exist but are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Show cross-references' aligns. It adds that input is an address or function, but no further behavioral traits (e.g., output format, performance).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single clear sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description is minimal and does not explain what 'cross-references' entails or how results are structured. It is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (per context), so the description should compensate. However, it merely restates that the input is an 'address or function,' which is already in the schema's property description. No new semantics added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show cross-references to a given address or function' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like edb_find_references, the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of limitations or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering safety. The description adds that it uses pwntools flat(), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, resulting in a neutral score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, reducing the need for detailed return value description. However, the description omits key details about parameter formats and does not differentiate from similar siblings, making it only minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'list of values/addresses' but fails to explain parameters like arch, endian, and pack_size, which remain ambiguous. Minimal value added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Pack' and the resource 'list of values/addresses into flat bytes', which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool pwntools_pack, which performs a similar operation, leading to potential confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pwntools_pack. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or contextual conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds limited incremental transparency by listing supported operations. It does not detail error behavior, side effects, or limitations, but the annotations cover safety adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with the main action in the first sentence, followed by examples and args/returns. It avoids unnecessary detail, though the structured args/returns could be omitted if the schema is the primary reference.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately covers input and output types. It provides examples and supported operations, but lacks error handling details. For a read-only evaluation tool, this is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a description for the 'expression' parameter with examples, so the description's repetition adds little new meaning. The schema coverage is effectively high despite the 0% metric, as the schema includes its own description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Evaluate a C expression in the debug context' and lists supported operations (variables, pointer dereferences, casts, arithmetic, function calls) with examples. It implies a general-purpose evaluator but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like edb_get_variable or edb_call_function, which limits clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or context. The description assumes the agent knows when to evaluate an expression versus, for example, reading a variable directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it returns JSON and lists fields, but doesn't add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief and includes structured Args/Returns format, but could omit redundant schema info. No wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature and presence of annotations, the description is sufficient for basic use. Lacks edge case handling or error details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description repeats the schema's parameter description ('frame number, 0 = current') without adding new meaning. Schema already describes the parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves detailed info for a specific stack frame level, listing address, function, file, line. However, it doesn't distinguish from similar sibling tools like edb_get_frame_info or edb_get_backtrace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusionary criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions equivalence to EDB's panel and returns a string, but there is slight ambiguity about frame range vs. current frame. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise with a clear Args/Returns structure. Some redundancy exists between the first two sentences, but overall it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., how arguments per frame are separated) and does not specify whether multiple frames are supported despite the frame_low parameter. Output schema existence is noted but not leveraged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description repeats parameter information already present in the schema, but does so in a clear, narrative format. With schema covering the parameter details, the description adds limited additional value, consistent with baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists arguments for stack frames and references EDB's stack frame panel, indicating the specific resource and action. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like edb_get_arguments, preventing a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edb_get_arguments or edb_get_locals. The description lacks explicit context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=true, which contradict each other since clearing history is destructive. The description mentions 'clear the history' but does not clarify the discrepancy or add details beyond annotations, such as side effects or authorization needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two modes and an output schema, the description minimally covers the functionality but lacks details on side effects of clearing, whether history persists across sessions, or what the 'show' output looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, 'clear', is described in the input schema but the description does not add any extra semantic meaning. With schema description coverage at 0% (despite the schema having a brief description), the description fails to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows or clears memory patches from the session. The verb 'show' and 'clear' combined with 'memory patches' and 'history' precisely define the resource and action, distinguishing it from siblings like edb_apply_patches_to_file or edb_nop_range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as edb_apply_patches_to_file or viewing patches via other means. It lacks context on prerequisites, when not to use, or typical workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld hints. Description adds 'up/down' but doesn't fully clarify behavior (e.g., does it return both values or one? How does rounding work?). Adds some value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no waste. Front-loaded with key action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite annotations and schema coverage, description lacks information about output shape (context indicates output schema exists but not shown). Agent may not know what the return value represents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Value to align (address or size)', 'Alignment boundary (default: 0x1000/page)'). Description does not add extra meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb (calculate) and resource (aligned value) with indication of direction (up/down). It is specific and distinct from siblings, though lacks specification on how direction is controlled.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Among sibling tools, there is no differentiation or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'Creates a backup', which adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=true. However, it does not elaborate on error scenarios (e.g., invalid offset, permission issues) or the degree of destruction (e.g., irreversible after backup). Annotations already convey the destructive nature, so this is acceptable but not exceptional.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence immediately conveys the core functionality, and the second adds a critical side effect (backup). It is well-structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral detail (backup). The tool is simple, and the description is sufficient for an experienced user. However, it does not mention the return value or error handling, which the output schema might cover. For a low-complexity tool, this is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite the schema coverage being indicated as 0%, the description compensates partially by mentioning 'file offset' and 'bytes' (implied hex). However, it does not individually explain the 'path' parameter or clarify the exact format of 'bytes' (e.g., spaces allowed). The schema actually contains parameter descriptions, but based on the given context signal, the description insufficiently covers all three parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Patch bytes'), the resource ('ELF binary'), and the method ('at a given file offset'). It is specific and distinguishes from other tools in the sibling list, such as 'pwntools_elf_read' or 'pwntools_elf_search'. However, it could be more explicit about the permanent nature of the change.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edb_apply_patches_to_file' or other patching methods. There is no guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds little beyond 'raw data' and 'active tube', omitting details like error conditions or constraints. Schema coverage is low, so description should compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no redundancy, but could include more context without losing conciseness. Efficient but borderline underspecified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and annotations are present, the description still lacks essential context like tube prerequisites, data format expectations, and differentiation from sendline. Incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (minimal property descriptions), and the description does not elaborate on parameters like encoding for 'data' or the default/usage of 'tube_id'. No added value over schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Send' and the resource 'raw data' to 'an active tube', distinguishing it from sibling like pwntools_tube_sendline which adds a newline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies that the tube must be active and that this is for raw data, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs sendline or prerequisites like tube state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds that it finds 'readable ASCII strings', which clarifies output type, but does not explain memory region scope or encoding details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, no extra words, front-loaded with action and target. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity and presence of output schema, the description is adequate but could hint at return format (e.g., list of strings with addresses). Still, it covers the core functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter min_length is already described in the schema ('Minimum string length to find'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Scan process memory for readable ASCII strings' clearly states the action and target, distinguishing it from file-oriented string scanning (e.g., edb_find_strings). However, it could be more explicit about which process is scanned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 edb_find_strings or edb_search_memory. The description lacks context for choosing this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that the search is case-insensitive and accepts hex byte patterns. However, it does not disclose behaviors like whether the search is limited to mapped memory, what happens if no range is given, or the format of the returned addresses. The additional info is useful but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise but contains redundancy: the first sentence and the second paragraph essentially repeat the same information. The 'Args' section duplicates schema content. It could be streamlined into a single paragraph without losing clarity. It is not overly long, but each sentence should be justified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks details about optional range behavior (if unspecified, does it search all memory?), error conditions (e.g., pattern not found), and the exact format of the returned addresses. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (which may cover return format), the description is adequate but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all nested parameters (pattern, range_start, range_end), including an example for pattern. The description repeats these in an 'Args' section with the same example, adding no new meaning. The description does clarify that pattern is hex and case-insensitive, but this is already implied by the schema example. With schema coverage effectively high for nested parameters, the description adds marginal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Search memory for byte patterns' and specifies it is case-insensitive and for hex byte patterns. It also provides a use case: 'finding instruction opcode patterns in code sections.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'edb_search_memory', which likely performs a similar function but without the instruction-specific focus. The verb 'search' and resource 'memory' are clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding instruction opcode patterns but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edb_search_memory' or other search tools. It lacks exclusion criteria or context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring a running process or open memory range). The guidance is minimal, relying on the tool name and the use case hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds that it uses CPU debug registers, implying limited resource consumption, but does not elaborate on potential conflicts, persistence, or privilege requirements. Some behavioral context is provided, but not comprehensively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise, but includes a redundant docstring block (Args/Returns) that largely duplicates the schema. The core sentence is clear, but the structure could be more efficient by front-loading the key points without repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (hardware breakpoint, limited registers) and the presence of a good input schema and output schema, the description lacks critical context such as the maximum number of hardware breakpoints, failure scenarios, and the distinction from software breakpoints. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions location as 'Address or function name', which adds a bit of meaning, but the input schema already provides detailed descriptions (including examples like '*0x400000' and conditional expressions). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more; it does not explain the optional condition parameter or provide new insights beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a hardware-assisted breakpoint using CPU debug registers, and mentions specific use cases (ROM, flash, self-modifying code). This distinguishes it from siblings like software breakpoints (edb_set_breakpoint) and watchpoints (edb_set_watchpoint), but it does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description suggests when to use the tool (for ROM, flash, or self-modifying code regions), implying it's useful when software breakpoints cannot be applied. However, it lacks explicit guidelines on when not to use it, alternatives, or limitations like the finite number of hardware breakpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the specific fields listed, which is useful but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the fields returned. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, the lack of parameter guidance and the omission of any usage conditions leaves a small gap for an agent unfamiliar with pwntools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain the 'path' parameter or its constraints. The agent must guess that 'path' refers to the absolute path of the ELF binary, which is only implied by the schema's title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists ELF program headers and specifies the fields included (type, flags, offset, vaddr, filesz, memsz). It distinguishes itself from related tools like pwntools_elf_sections by focusing on segments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pwntools_elf_sections or pwntools_elf_notes. The agent would need to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the schema provides (section filter is already in the input schema). No mention of performance, error behavior, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 12-word sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. No filler or unnecessary details. Front-loaded with verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is adequate but missing error handling notes (e.g., invalid path, non-ELF files) and edge cases (empty string list). Annotations cover the safety profile well.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (path, section, min_length), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning; it merely restates 'optionally filtered by section' which is redundant with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Extract' and clearly identifies the resource 'printable strings from an ELF binary'. It also mentions optional filtering by section, which distinguishes it from other pwntools_elf tools like pwntools_elf_symbols or pwntools_elf_sections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edb_process_strings or grep). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context such as binary analysis workflow where string extraction is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a safety profile. The description adds that it exports the 'complete' state as JSON, implying a heavy operation but no further behavioral details like size or side effects beyond what annotations cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and output format. It is efficient, though it could include a bit more contextual detail without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema (not shown) and annotations are rich, the description covers the essential purpose. However, the term 'complete debugger state' is somewhat vague, and without an output schema here, it might leave ambiguity. Overall, it is adequate for a zero-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add param information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it exports the complete debugger state as structured JSON. The verb 'Export' and resource 'complete debugger state' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools like edb_dump_state, which may also dump state in a different format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edb_dump_state or other state-reading tools. The description lacks any usage context or when-not-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it shows current state and highlights changes, and returns a string. It does not contradict annotations but offers limited new behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: three short sentences and a return type. Front-loaded with the core action and purpose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks an explanation of what 'changed' means (compared to which previous state?) and does not describe the output format beyond 'Register dump'. With no parameters and a simple output, it is adequate but not fully complete for a debugger context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter information. It correctly implies no input is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all registers and highlights changed values, distinguishing it from siblings like edb_get_registers or edb_dump_registers by emphasizing the 'changed' aspect. However, it could be more explicit about the comparison baseline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 edb_get_registers or edb_dump_registers. The description does not provide selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context about signal numbers and examples, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like potential process interruption, response expectations, or error conditions, which are relevant for a destructive action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose, then examples, then parameter details. Every sentence contributes to clarity, though 'Equivalent to EDB's signal delivery mechanism' is slightly vague.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (single parameter, output schema exists), the description covers purpose and parameter adequately. However, it lacks details about return value format, failure scenarios, and prerequisites (e.g., process must be running). Annotations fill some gaps but not all.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides a description for the 'signum' parameter ('Signal number to send...'), but the tool description reiterates it with examples and range (1-64). Coverage is stated as 0%, but schema description exists. The description adds limited value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Send a signal to the debugged process' specifying the verb 'send' and resource 'signal to debugged process'. It provides examples (SIGINT, SIGTERM) and distinguishes from siblings like edb_signal_handling by focusing on sending.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied through examples ('Can be used to send SIGINT to interrupt, SIGTERM for graceful shutdown'), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. No comparison with alternative sibling tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and potential side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds context about conditional support but doesn't expand beyond what annotations already imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with clear sections for arguments and returns. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description covers location types and condition format adequately. It could mention defaults or error handling but is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful examples for location (e.g., 'main', '*0x400528', 'foo.c:42') and condition expression format (e.g., 'x == 5'), enhancing the schema's terse descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a breakpoint at various locations (function, address, source) and supports conditions. It is specific, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edb_set_hardware_breakpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions conditional breakpoints but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edb_set_breakpoint_condition or edb_set_hardware_breakpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide; it doesn't explain behavior like error handling or result structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with zero wasted words. Concise and to the point, appropriate for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description lacks context about the cyclic pattern source (e.g., pwntools_cyclic) and does not mention what the output looks like or how to interpret the offset. Users unfamiliar with pwntools may find it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover both parameters (value and length) with clear explanations. Tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool's function: finding the offset of a value within a cyclic pattern. It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('offset of a value within a cyclic pattern'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pwntools_cyclic which generates patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., generating a cyclic pattern first) or provide context for selecting this tool among many pwntools siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., prerequisites, error handling, or output details). Given the annotation coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It directly conveys the tool's action and subject.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could mention what information constitutes a GOT entry (e.g., function addresses, offsets) to improve completeness. Currently adequate but not excellent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, placing the burden on the description. The description does not elaborate on the 'params' object or the 'path' property (e.g., format, required traits). The single parameter is implicitly explained by the tool's purpose, but explicit guidance is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Parse') and the resource ('Global Offset Table entries from an ELF binary'). It uses a specific verb and noun, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pwntools_elf_plt or pwntools_elf_symbols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many ELF-parsing siblings (elf_plt, elf_symbols, elf_sections, etc.), there is no contextual hint or explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, such as whether it searches file offsets or virtual addresses, or what the result format is. With annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the primary function. It front-loads the action and is not verbose, though it could include more structural elements like expected output or examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of detailed schemas and annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention whether the search is in file offsets or provides context about case sensitivity or pattern matching behavior. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (path, pattern, start, end), making schema_description_coverage effectively high (100%). The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('a byte pattern in an ELF binary'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pwntools_elf_strings and pwntools_elf_symbols, which search for specific types of content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edb_search_memory for memory searches or other pwntools_elf tools). No context about prerequisites or intended use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific encoding methods but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (three parameters, need for encoding), the description combined with annotations is somewhat complete. However, the description lacks parameter details and usage context, and relies on the output schema (present but not shown) for completeness. It could be more thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, meaning the schema property descriptions are absent (despite the input schema containing descriptions). The tool description only lists encoder types but does not explain the 'arch' or 'hex_bytes' parameters. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving agents to guess parameter formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool encodes shellcode using pwntools encoders and lists the available encoders (alphanumeric, null_free, xor). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like pwntools_asm (assembly) or pwntools_disasm (disassembly), which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and listed encoders imply its use for encoding shellcode, there is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it (e.g., if encoding is unnecessary or another tool is better suited).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds 'generate' which is consistent, but does not provide additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the key action, but could potentially expand slightly on usage without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description is minimal and does not elaborate on when an SROP frame is needed or how to integrate it into an exploit, leaving some gaps for an agent unfamiliar with SROP.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is effectively 100% as each parameter in the input schema has a description (e.g., 'RAX value (syscall number for SROP)'). The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates an SROP frame using pwntools, specifying the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'Sigreturn-Oriented Programming (SROP) frame'. This distinguishes it from siblings like pwntools_build_rop_chain by focusing on a specific ROP technique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context for when not to use it. It only states what it does without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'from an active tube,' which is implicit but not in annotations. No contradictions exist. Scoring 3 as description adds minimal value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence of six words. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, annotations covering safety, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling recv tools (recvline, recvuntil), which would improve completeness. Score 4.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (nbytes, timeout, tube_id), so schema_description_coverage is effectively high. Per scoring guidelines, baseline is 3 even with no param info in description. The description adds no additional meaning, so score remains 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Receive data from an active tube' clearly states the verb (receive) and resource (data from tube). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pwntools_tube_recvline or pwntools_tube_recvuntil, which have more specific purposes. A score of 4 reflects clear purpose but lack of sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pwntools_tube_recvline, pwntools_tube_recvuntil, or other tube operations. The description lacks usage context, making it difficult for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds what the output contains (regions, sizes, permissions, strings) and the plugin equivalence, which is helpful but not extensive. Since annotations carry the main behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, equivalence, and output details. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema (though not shown in detail). The description covers the key aspects: target (heap memory of debugged process), information shown, and plugin equivalence. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does without needing more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Per calibration, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly omits any parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes the heap memory region, lists what it shows (regions, sizes, permissions, strings), and mentions it's equivalent to a specific plugin. The verb 'analyze' and resource 'heap memory' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edb_analyze_region or edb_analyze_basic_blocks, so it loses a point for lack of sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only states it is equivalent to EDB's HeapAnalyzer plugin but gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds context that it 'affects future runs', which is useful but does not disclose side effects beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise at about 60 words, front-loaded with purpose. The 'Equivalent to' sentence provides useful context. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one boolean parameter and a string output confirmation, the description covers core functionality and effect on future runs. However, it does not clarify scoping (e.g., session vs global) nor mention the return value format beyond 'Confirmation'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'disable' parameter as disabling or enabling ASLR. The description's parameter section adds no new information beyond what the schema provides. Schema coverage is effectively 100% for the description of 'disable'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool disables or enables ASLR for the debugee, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools which cover other debugger operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description mentions it is equivalent to a checkbox in DialogOptions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds limited value by framing the operation as essential for patching, but no additional behavioral details (e.g., error handling, prerequisites) are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with three short sentences and a structured Args/Returns section. It front-loads the core action and use case, but the inclusion of an explicit Args/Returns block in the description is somewhat redundant given the structured schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and a clear output (hex virtual address). The description covers the conversion purpose, input, and output adequately. It does not mention edge cases or format constraints, but the output schema clarifies the return type.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema. The description of the 'offset' parameter ('Offset in bytes from start of file') closely mirrors the schema's description ('File offset in bytes'). With schema description coverage effectively 100% for this parameter, the baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the conversion from file offset to virtual address and provides a usage context (patching binaries and understanding disk-to-memory mapping). The tool name itself is descriptive, and the description reinforces it without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'edb_va_to_file_offset' (the inverse operation). It mentions 'Essential for patching binaries' but offers no guidance on alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool modifies state nondestructively. The description explains it sets a mode, which is appropriate, but does not elaborate on potential side effects (e.g., affecting current session behavior). The transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality. It is complete for the task of selecting and using the tool, though it omits behavioral effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'mode' with enum values and a description. The description adds context by explaining the overall purpose (setting fork follow behavior), which clarifies the parameter's meaning. However, it does not explain the effect of each mode choice beyond what the enum suggests.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the debugger's fork follow mode, specifying the verb 'Set' and the resource 'follow parent or child process after a fork'. It is distinct from sibling tools like edb_attach_process or edb_continue, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to set 'parent' versus 'child' mode, or what prerequisites exist. The description only states the function without context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds the return type (str), which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations, but does not disclose additional traits like format or behavior when no thread is active.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short, front-loaded sentences. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, strong annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is adequate. It could be improved by adding context like 'in the debugged process' to clarify scope, but it remains sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so the description need not add parameter details. It mentions the return type, which is helpful for understanding output. Schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'info about the currently active thread'. It is distinct from siblings like edb_get_registers or edb_get_current_instruction, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edb_list_threads or edb_set_current_thread. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns frame information with args and locals, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise (~80 words) with a clear purpose statement and structured Args/Returns sections. Front-loaded with key information, no redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the input well and provides analogy to EDB's panel. However, it does not clarify what 'and more' includes or handle potential errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'frame_level' is described in both the schema and the docstring with default 0 and meaning 'innermost'. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it gets detailed frame info including address, function, arguments, locals, and frame type. However, does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like edb_get_arguments or edb_get_locals which retrieve subsets of this data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edb_get_arguments, edb_get_locals). The description provides an analogy to EDB's call stack panel, implying it is a comprehensive view, but lacks direct comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description's disclosure of the analysis fields (entry point, PIE/NX/RELRO/Canary, etc.) adds valuable context about what the tool returns. It does not contradict annotations. The description could mention that the tool is purely observational, but the annotations cover that well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output. Every element is purposeful, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter and an output schema (likely detailed). The description lists the key analysis items, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the returned data. It could be slightly more explicit about the output structure, but given the output schema, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter (an object with 'path'). The description does not explain the parameter or how to provide it, relying entirely on the schema. For a tool requiring a file path, the description should at least mention it expects a path to an ELF binary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('Analyze') and resources ('ELF binary'), and lists key properties (entry point, PIE/NX/RELRO/Canary, sections, symbols, PLT/GOT, segments). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects (e.g., pwntools_elf_sections, pwntools_checksec).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools for specific ELF analysis (e.g., pwntools_elf_sections, pwntools_elf_symbols), it fails to mention that this tool is a comprehensive overview while others are more targeted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the tool's purpose. A minimal additional context about the PLT structure would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the essential action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. However, the description lacks context about when to use this tool and assumptions about ELF binary validity. Still, for a simple read-only parser, it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% according to context, and the tool description does not mention the single 'params' parameter or its 'path' property. The schema itself describes the path, but the description adds no parameter information, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Parse' and the resource 'Procedure Linkage Table (PLT) entries from an ELF binary', distinguishing it from sibling tools like pwntools_elf_got or pwntools_elf_symbols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 pwntools_elf_got or pwntools_elf_sections. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, safe operation. The description adds the specific set of attributes returned but does not disclose any limitations or additional behavior beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no filler, directly states purpose and output details. Front-loaded with action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the key aspects for a simple read tool. It could mention that it returns a list, but the output schema likely fills that gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds the list of returned attributes (type, flags, address, offset, size, alignment) which are not present in schema descriptions. This clarifies the output contents. However, it does not explain the filter_name parameter's effect beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists all ELF sections with detailed attributes (type, flags, address, offset, size, alignment). The verb 'List' and resource 'ELF sections' are explicit. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like pwntools_elf_segments, though the name helps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., other ELF tools). No prerequisites or context are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, clearly indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., performance, edge cases, or error conditions), but does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence (9 words) with no wasted text. It is appropriately front-loaded, though slightly brief for a tool with multiple parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides minimal but adequate context for the basic operation. However, it lacks details about default behaviors or differentiation from similar pwntools tools, making it only marginally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% per context, yet the tool description does not elaborate on parameters beyond mentioning 'regex pattern and type'. The required 'path' parameter is not described, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search symbols in an ELF binary by regex pattern and type' clearly specifies the action (search), resource (symbols in ELF binary), and method (regex pattern and type). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pwntools_elf_sections or pwntools_elf_strings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for symbol searching but does not mention exclusions or provide context for when other tools (e.g., pwntools_elf_strings) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('using pwntools ROP engine') but does not describe return format, performance characteristics, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 13 words, which is extremely concise. It front-loads the essential purpose with no waste. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (parameterized search with filtering and depth control) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain how to use the grep parameter (e.g., format for registers/instructions) or mention the output format (list of gadgets). Additional context would improve usability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema_description_coverage is reported as 0%, the actual schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (grep, path, count, depth). The tool description does not add any additional meaning about parameter usage or semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's action ('Search'), resource ('ROP gadgets in an ELF binary'), and method ('using pwntools ROP engine'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like edb_find_rop_gadgets (different toolchain) and pwntools_build_rop_chain (different purpose).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to use this over pwntools_build_rop_chain or pwntools_erope. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds minimal extra context (output styling) but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core functionality concisely. However, the phrase 'formatted hex dump' is slightly redundant, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple formatting tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description is fairly complete. It mentions the output style, though it could briefly note the output format (e.g., string).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the single parameter (hex string of bytes to dump). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, and schema coverage is high, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool displays a formatted hex dump using pwntools styling, with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pwntools_disasm or pwntools_asm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as pwntools_enhex or pwntools_unhex, nor any context about prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description confirms it establishes a connection (a stateful mutation), but adds no further behavioral context (e.g., resource cleanup, timeout behavior). With annotations present, this is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description is minimal but paired with an output schema (not visible here, but indicated as present) and well-described parameters. It misses stating that a tube object is returned, but the output schema likely covers that. For a connection tool, some guidance on expected return or errors would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters (host, port, timeout, tube_id). The tool description does not add anything beyond that, but the schema already covers meaning sufficiently, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Connect to a remote TCP service (pwntools tube)" uses a specific verb (connect) and resource (remote TCP service), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like pwntools_process (local) and tube_* operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pwntools_process for local, or when a tube is already connected). No context for prerequisites or subsequent steps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc., so description adds minimal behavioral context beyond examples. No side effects or requirements disclosed beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical input formatting details (e.g., how hex_bytes should be separated, allowed sizes beyond examples). Incomplete for safe usage without schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description fails to explain parameter meanings (e.g., hex_bytes format, size options). Only mentions unpacking bytes, leaving parameter semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool unpacks bytes into an integer, with examples u64, u32, u16, which distinguishes it from the sibling pwntools_pack (pack integer to bytes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives; implied by name but not stated. Sibling tools like pwntools_pack are opposite, but no when-not conditions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it imports breakpoints from a JSON file, which is consistent. No contradictions, but no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with an Args block, which is reasonably concise. However, the Args block is somewhat redundant as it restates the parameter name without adding new information. Nonetheless, it is front-loaded and serves the purpose without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple import tool with one parameter and an output schema (returning a string confirmation with count), the description provides enough context: it mentions the source file, the counterpart, and the return value. It is complete for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and prerequisites, though it could be slightly more explicit about the output structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only has a minimal description for file_path). The description does not add any parameter details beyond listing 'file_path' in an Args block. It fails to explain the format, constraints, or any semantics of the parameter, so it does not add value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action ('import breakpoints'), the resource ('from a JSON file'), and the context ('previously exported with edb_breakpoint_export', 'Equivalent to EDB's BreakpointManager import feature'). This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from other sibling tools like edb_set_breakpoint or edb_remove_breakpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a breakpoint file from edb_breakpoint_export, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, so the usage guidelines are only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context by listing example settings (follow-fork-mode, ASLR, etc.) and indicating it modifies debugger state. However, it does not disclose potential consequences such as affecting execution or requiring permissions, beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, well-formatted with clear sections (Args, Returns), and uses bullet points in the schema. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a well-defined input schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains query behavior and provides representative setting examples. Minor gap: it does not explicitly state that changes take effect immediately, but this is implied by 'configure'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions already cover both parameters with examples and usage (e.g., 'empty to query'). The description's Args section largely mirrors the schema, adding no new meaning. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it configures GDB debugger settings and is equivalent to EDB's Configure Debugger dialog. It specifies the types of settings (follow-fork-mode, ASLR, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edb_set_breakpoint or edb_execute_gdb_command.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when-not to use it or any prerequisites. Sibling tools like edb_set_register or edb_set_breakpoint are for specific changes, but no differentiation is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds minimal behavioral information beyond annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. Description only restates the action without additional insights like error handling or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is extremely concise with no unnecessary words. It starts with a clear purpose sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic functionality and return type. Missing error cases or edge behaviors, but adequate for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description includes an Args section explaining the params parameter with example register names, adding some value. However, schema already describes the 'name' property similarly. With schema description coverage indicated as 0% (though schema shows a description), baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'value of a specific CPU register'. Distinguishes from siblings like edb_get_registers (plural) and edb_enum_registers (list) by emphasizing 'specific' and single register parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by purpose, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as edb_get_registers or edb_enum_registers. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, setting clear behavioral expectations. The description adds minor value by noting that results are 'sorted' and returns a list of addresses with comments, but does not explain the sort order, format, or edge cases. Thus it adds some context but is not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, detail about sorted output, and return type. It is mostly concise, but the final 'Returns: str: Comment listing' line is somewhat redundant with the preceding sentence. No wasted words overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with good annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It omits details like sort order, confidence in completeness, and format of the output string. Given the output schema is declared present (but not provided), the description could still be more explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as none exist. It does not explicitly state that no arguments are required, but the schema already implies this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all address annotations added via edb_add_comment.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('address annotations/comments'), and uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like edb_add_comment and edb_list_bookmarks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edb_add_comment, edb_remove_comment, edb_list_bookmarks). It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc. The description adds that the tool returns a string with address and type info, but lacks prerequisites (e.g., loaded binary) or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with three clear sections: purpose, args, returns. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., hex address) and error handling, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter description provides examples ('main', 'printf') but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's own description. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates but is not detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool looks up a symbol's address and type, specifying it supports functions and variables. This differentiates it from sibling tools like edb_list_functions or edb_generate_symbols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., edb_list_symbols, edb_get_variable). The description only implies usage through the tool name and examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the return format (hex dump with hex bytes and ASCII), which is beyond annotations but not extensive. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences and a bulleted list. It front-loads the purpose and covers essential details without extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with good annotations and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It mentions the return type but lacks error or permission details, which are not critical here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description repeats parameter info already present in the input schema (address as hex or symbol, count with range). It does not add new semantic value beyond the schema descriptions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads and displays memory contents as a hex dump with ASCII. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edb_read_memory_as or edb_dump_memory_to_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage, leaving the agent without explicit decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description mentions 'Remove' matching destructiveHint, and returns confirmation string. It adds that it works on previously added comments but does not discuss error cases or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Short and front-loaded, but includes redundant docstring format (Args/Returns) that repeats schema. Could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple tool with annotations and output schema, description covers essential use case. Missing details on error handling but sufficient for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description repeats schema parameter info without adding significant new meaning beyond 'Address to remove comment from'. No explanation of validation or behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (remove) and resource (annotation), and references the sibling tool edb_add_comment. It is distinct from other tools like edb_list_comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States the tool is for removing annotations added by edb_add_comment, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use it, and no alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, indicating side effects. The description adds that execution stops on the event and returns a confirmation string, but lacks details on prerequisites, error states, or idempotency beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, but includes a parameter list that largely duplicates schema info. Minor verbosity but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value. However, the 'condition' parameter usage is vaguely explained (optional condition or syscall name/number) and no output schema details (e.g., error handling) are provided. Adequate but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (event and condition). The description repeats these verbatim, adding no new semantic meaning. Schema coverage is effectively 100% via the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets catchpoints for exceptions, syscalls, signals, or process events, and differentiates from siblings like breakpoints by referencing EDB's catchpoint feature. It lists specific event types, leaving no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for catching system-level events but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like breakpoints or watchpoints. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, only a reference to EDB's catchpoint feature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., no mention of rate limits, permission requirements, or response format), so it provides no value beyond annotations, warranting a standard 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no filler. Every word is essential, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with a thorough output schema and robust annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and scope. However, it lacks an example or clarification of search format (e.g., hex vs. plain text). With the output schema present, the agent can infer return details, so it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema itself provides descriptions for all three parameters (arch, limit, search), achieving 100% intrinsic coverage. The description adds only the vague 'by name or value' phrase, which slightly reinforces the search parameter's meaning but does not offer semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Search pwntools/ELF constants by name or value,' which specifies the verb (search), resource (pwntools/ELF constants), and scope (by name or value). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pwntools_elf_search (searches bytes/instructions) and pwntools_elf_strings (searches strings), earning a top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pwntools_elf_search or pwntools_elf_symbols. It lacks explicit context for selection, resulting in a low score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling, side effects, or system interactions (e.g., what happens if the path is invalid). It is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the tool's action and target. Every word contributes meaning; no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only listing tool with clear schema descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality. It lacks details about edge cases (e.g., missing binary, unresolved versions) but is largely complete given the existing structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has descriptions for both parameters ('path' and 'resolve_versions'), so schema_description_coverage is effectively high (despite context stating 0%, the schema includes descriptions). The tool description does not add any additional parameter guidance, fulfilling the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource: 'shared library dependencies of an ELF binary (DT_NEEDED entries)'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focused on other ELF aspects like sections, segments, or symbols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to similar tools (e.g., other pwntools_elf_* tools). The agent has no decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description does not add behavioral context beyond the basic operation. For a simple transformation, this is adequate but not exceptional.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is mostly complete. An output schema exists (not shown) so return values don't need explanation. A minor improvement could be noting the default bit width, but the schema handles that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes descriptions for all parameters (value, shift, bits). The description adds minimal extra meaning, as it only restates the operation. Schema coverage is high, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action (rotate), the resource (integer value), the direction (right), and the unit (bits). It effectively distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'pwntools_rol' which rotates left.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons with other bitwise operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds little beyond the annotations: it confirms the destructive nature (consistent with destructiveHint=true) and mentions 'active tube', but does not disclose error conditions (e.g., what happens if tube is closed), the exact newline character appended, or any side effects. The annotations already indicate destructive behavior, so the description's contribution is weak.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of nine words, very concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action. However, it sacrifices some detail (e.g., newline type) that could be included without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations (destructiveHint) and an output schema (not shown, but indicated), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It omits the requirement that the tube be 'active' (which is mentioned but not elaborated), and does not cover error handling or return value expectations. It meets the minimum viable standard.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the data parameter is a line and that a newline will be appended. The schema only describes 'data' as bytes, so the description enriches understanding. However, it does not elaborate on the 'tube_id' parameter or its default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Send a line (with newline) to an active tube' clearly states the action (send), resource (a line with newline), and target (active tube). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'pwntools_tube_send' by explicitly mentioning the newline addition, making the tool's specific purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'to an active tube', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'pwntools_tube_send'. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites beyond an active tube. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds little beyond confirming it's a comparison. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., performance, filesystem access). No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is clear and front-loaded. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple (no params) and has an output schema (not shown). Description is adequate but could briefly note that it reads the original file from disk, which is implied but not explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Per rules, baseline is 4 since there are no parameters to document. Description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: compare the currently loaded binary with its original on disk. This is specific and distinguishes it from other tools like memory comparison or section comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edb_compare_memory or edb_compare_sections. The description does not help the agent decide which comparison tool to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that when lazy binding is disabled, all shared library symbols are resolved at startup, which improves breakpoint reliability. This complements the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement, an analogy to the UI, and a brief explanation of the effect. The Args and Returns sections are tidy, though the Returns section could be more informative than just 'str: Confirmation'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one boolean parameter), the description covers the key behavioral impact and parameter meaning. The presence of an output schema (implied) reduces the need to detail return values. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a description for the 'disable' parameter ('True = disable lazy binding, False = enable lazy binding'), so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description's Args section restates this without adding new semantics, thus meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool disables or enables lazy binding for the debugee, explaining its effect on symbol resolution and breakpoint reliability. It is specific and distinct from siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools like edb_configure_debugger.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (to make breakpoints on library functions more reliable) and references the corresponding UI checkbox. However, it does not provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance or mention alternatives, leaving usage context somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a formatted disassembly listing, but does not mention error conditions or limitations beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two introductory sentences followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary detail but includes essential information. Slightly verbose in listing defaults, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of annotations, an output schema description, and clear parameter semantics, the description covers the main aspects. It lacks descriptions of error scenarios or assumptions about the debugger state, but the core functionality is fully explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description expands on the schema by providing examples for location (e.g., '0x400000', 'main') and specifying the count range and default value explicitly. Although the schema already includes descriptions and constraints, the examples add practical clarity. Schema description coverage is low at 0% (likely referring to the top-level params), but the description compensates effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'disassemble' and the resource 'machine code at an address or function.' It specifies the output format (assembly instructions with addresses, offsets, and opcodes), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like edb_assemble or edb_instruction_detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edb_disassemble_range or edb_instruction_detail. The description lacks prerequisites, context for when it is appropriate, or when to avoid using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it generates payloads but does not elaborate on side effects, return format, or whether it saves to disk. The behavioral context is adequately covered by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and supported architectures. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite minimal description, the input schema is detailed, and annotations cover safety. An output schema exists (not shown) so return values need not be explained. The description could hint at whether the payload is returned or saved, but the tool remains functional without it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% per context signals, yet the description does not compensate by explaining parameters. The description only mentions 'offset + ROP chain + shellcode' but does not clarify the role of each input parameter (cmd, arch, binary, offset, save_path). The schema has good descriptions, but the tool description adds no value for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifically states it generates a buffer-overflow exploit payload comprising offset, ROP chain, and shellcode, and lists supported architectures. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edb_find_rop_gadgets or pwntools_build_rop_chain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for creating exploit payloads with ROP and shellcode but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., requiring a found offset) and does not differentiate from using separate steps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint (false). The description adds that it returns gadget addresses and bytes, but does not disclose additional behaviors like memory access permissions or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is relatively concise with a clear front-loaded purpose. The docstring-like parameter list is helpful but could be more integrated. No unnecessary sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, the description's return mention suffices. It covers purpose and parameters adequately, but lacks usage guidelines and more behavioral context for an exploit tool. Annotations provide some safety info.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% according to context, so the description bears full burden. It clearly describes each parameter: address (start, default $pc), depth (1-10, default 2), count (1-1000, default 100). This provides essential meaning beyond the schema's type constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it searches for ROP gadgets (instructions ending with 'ret') in memory. Explicitly mentions its equivalence to EDB's ROPTool plugin and its use for ROP chain construction. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edb_search_instructions and pwntools_find_rop by focusing on ROP gadgets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it's equivalent to EDB's ROPTool plugin but does not provide criteria for selection, exclusion, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it saves full process memory and register state, clarifying what is captured. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like process pausing or file size implications, nor does it elaborate on the 'save state' equivalence beyond what annotations suggest.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose, an immediate synonym, and an args/returns breakdown. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, clear return type), the description sufficiently covers all important aspects: what it does, what it captures, the output file path, and the return value. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the parameter 'file_path' with a default and description. The description repeats this ('Output file path (default: core)') without adding new meaning. With high schema coverage (one parameter described in schema), the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'generate', the resource 'core dump', and the purpose 'for post-mortem analysis'. It distinguishes itself by noting equivalence to EDB's save state feature, differentiating from sibling tools like dump_memory_to_file or dump_registers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edb_dump_memory_to_file or edb_dump_registers. It only implies usage for post-mortem analysis but does not exclude other scenarios or provide comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that it shows argument names and values and returns a string, but no further behavioral traits (e.g., dependency on current stack frame) are disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise at two lines plus a Returns line. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though a slightly more structured format could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with no parameters and an output schema (likely simple), the description is adequate. It explains the purpose and return type, but could mention that it works only when paused at a function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description need not add parameter info. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'arguments passed to the current function', and it distinguishes itself from similar tools like edb_get_locals or edb_get_register by specifying 'arguments'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description does not mention when-not-to-use or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that entries are 8-byte values and returns a hex dump, which goes beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences plus a return line) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with annotations and output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it could specify the amount of stack dumped (e.g., number of entries) to be fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline. The description explains output format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool dumps the current stack from stack pointer to higher addresses. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edb_get_stack_frame or edb_scan_stack_for_retaddr.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edb_get_stack_frame or edb_read_memory. No when/when-not context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the return type (str: Confirmation) but does not disclose behavior for nonexistent bookmarks, side effects, or whether the action is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loaded with the purpose ('Remove a bookmark by name'), and every line earns its place without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps: it does not specify what happens if the bookmark does not exist, nor does it elaborate on the confirmation string format. The sibling edb_list_bookmarks exists but is not cross-referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0% (top-level params lacks description), the description compensates by explaining that the param is a 'Bookmark name' and the specific field 'name' is 'Bookmark name to remove'. This adds clarity beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Remove a bookmark by name', specifying the action (remove) and the resource (bookmark) via a unique identifier (name). This distinguishes it from siblings like edb_add_bookmark and edb_list_bookmarks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you want to remove a bookmark by name) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotent and not destructive. Description adds what is saved but does not disclose potential overwrite behavior or side effects on current session.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise at ~80 words. First sentence gives main purpose, followed by useful details. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers what is saved, parameter, and return type. Lacks discussion of error conditions or file overwrite behavior. Fairly complete for a simple save tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description carries burden. It explains file_path but mostly repeats schema info. Adequate but not enhanced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Save' and resource 'complete debugging session', and lists what is saved (breakpoints, bookmarks, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like edb_session_load.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to save a session but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like edb_export_state or edb_dump_state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this tool is destructive (changes state) and idempotent. The description adds the operational detail that it enables/disables debug output and lists categories, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., performance impact, interaction with other settings). With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear overview sentence, an analogy, a list of categories, and an Args/Returns section. It is concise enough to be quickly parsed, though the category list could be slightly trimmed. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter (containing two sub-fields), a return type specified, and annotations present, the description covers the functionality adequately. It could elaborate on the exact format of the return string, but this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is reported as 0%, the schema actually contains descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that an empty category lists available categories, which is not in the schema. It also reiterates defaults and usage. This sufficiently compensates for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: enabling or disabling GDB internal debug output. It provides a specific verb (enable/disable) and resource (GDB internal debug output), and adds context by equating it to EDB's Debug Logger panel, which helps distinguish it from other configuration tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edb_configure_debugger). It only implies use for troubleshooting via the 'troubleshooting' mention, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the key behavioral traits. The description does not add significant context beyond what is in the annotations, such as side effects or scope implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear structure: purpose, Args, Returns. Each sentence serves a purpose. The only minor waste is the Returns line which is minimal but acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (set a variable), the description is fairly complete. It specifies the operation, parameters, and return type. However, it does not mention error conditions or scope limitations explicitly, which could be clarified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description's Args section adds meaningful examples and descriptions for the 'name' and 'value' parameters, going beyond the schema's property descriptions. This helps the agent understand variable naming conventions and value formatting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool modifies a variable's value in the current scope, and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'edb_get_variable' which retrieves variables. The debugging context is also provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage is during debugging to alter program behavior, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The description lacks guidance on when to use this over other mutation tools like 'edb_set_register'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key side effects: modifies stack and register state, beyond the destructiveHint annotation. Provides concrete details (decrements RSP) that help the agent understand what changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise and front-loaded. First sentence captures core action. Args and returns sections are minimal but sufficient. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple push operation but missing return semantics. The output schema indicates a string result, but the description only says 'str: Result' without clarifying what the result contains (e.g., success message).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'value' is described in the schema with examples, and the description repeats similar info. Schema coverage is adequate, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Push a value onto the program stack' with specific mechanics (decrements RSP, writes value). It distinguishes from siblings like edb_stack_pop and edb_stack_modify by focusing on pushing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description mentions a UI equivalent but lacks context for when pushing is appropriate compared to other stack operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the tool's behavioral profile is transparent. The description adds a useful detail: it searches function names, variable names, and source files. It does not contradict annotations and adds moderate value beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose, one for scope, one for use case, and a structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description, combined with existing annotations and schema, is mostly complete for a simple search tool. It explains what is searched and the return type. However, it could mention pagination or result format given the potential for many results, but this is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage per context, the description compensates well by explaining the parameter string_or_address with an example ('password' or hex address) and labeling it as 'Search target.' This adds practical guidance beyond the schema's minimal description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it finds code and data references to a string or address, using verbs like 'find' and specifying resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like edb_find_references or edb_find_strings, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions it is 'useful for tracing how a particular value or string is used,' which implies usage context. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare to alternatives like edb_find_strings (which finds strings in the binary).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description states it records every instruction execution, which implies a performance impact but is not destructive. It does not disclose that the trace may overwrite previous traces or require stopping the process.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and behavior without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple start command, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core action and behavior. Minor omissions include not mentioning the output (though an output schema exists) or that it clears previous traces.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite context signals indicating 0% schema description coverage, the input schema actually includes descriptions for both 'address' and 'max_size'. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, failing to compensate for the claimed low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it starts an execution trace at an address/function and records every instruction. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like edb_trace_stop and edb_trace_show.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage in a tracing workflow but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., program must be running) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide basic safety profile (non-destructive, non-idempotent). Description adds context about auto-display and evaluation on stops but does not detail side effects like replacing existing watches or limits. Not contradictory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that front-load the essential information with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and existing output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it does not explain the 'auto-display list' lifecycle or how to manage multiple watches, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the sole parameter 'expression' with examples and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add), the resource (expression to auto-display list), and the effect (evaluated and shown on every stop). It distinguishes from similar tools like edb_evaluate_expression.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edb_set_watchpoint or edb_evaluate_expression. The description implies usage for continuous observation but lacks when-not-to-use criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as output format or constraints, but does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, single-parameter tool with output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the core purpose, but could mention the output format (e.g., a string of characters) for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameter 'count' (e.g., default, range, or meaning). The schema itself contains a description for count, but the tool description fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a cyclic pattern for buffer overflow offset discovery. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('cyclic pattern'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pwntools_cyclic_find.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for generating patterns but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pwntools_cyclic_find for finding offsets). No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value by naming the underlying libraries (pwntools + capstone), which is beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety is clear. The description does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the tool's core functionality with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose. It does not detail handling of multiple instructions or error cases, but the output schema likely covers return format. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite schema description coverage being listed as 0%, the description provides no additional parameter information. It does not mention the 'arch' or 'hex_data' parameters or their formats, failing to compensate for low coverage. The schema's own descriptions partially cover this, but the description should add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Disassemble' and the resource 'raw hex bytes into assembly instructions', distinguishing it from sibling tools like edb_disassemble that operate on memory addresses rather than raw bytes. The reference to 'pwntools + capstone' further differentiates the tool as a standalone utility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for raw hex bytes but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for memory disassembly) or mention of sibling tools like edb_disassemble. The context of 'raw hex bytes' offers implicit usage, but no direct comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact note types returned (build ID, ABI tag, property notes), which complements the annotations without contradiction. It does not disclose additional behavioral details like error handling or performance, but the annotations cover the safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence, 10 words) and front-loads the key information. However, it is too brief to provide structured details; a slightly longer description with separate elements could improve clarity without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the file must be a valid ELF binary) or edge cases (e.g., what happens if no notes exist). It covers the basic functionality sufficiently for an agent to infer usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining parameter semantics, but it does not. The single parameter 'path' is only described in the schema as 'Absolute path to the ELF binary', and the tool description adds no extra meaning, such as accepted formats, validation, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show ELF notes: build ID, ABI tag, property notes.' This provides a specific verb ('Show'), resource ('ELF notes'), and lists the specific data types returned, distinguishing it from sibling ELF tools like pwntools_elf_sections or pwntools_elf_symbols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating what the tool shows, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternative tools. For example, it does not say 'Use this to retrieve ELF notes metadata; for other ELF properties, see pwntools_elf_sections.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds behavioral context (Shannon entropy) but does not elaborate on output format or performance. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second gives use-case. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple computation tool with annotations covering safety and output schema expected to define return values, the description is mostly complete. It could mention the output range or format, but the use-case context is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 parameters. However, it only mentions 'file or memory region' without detailing the 'path', 'size', or 'offset' parameters. No parameter information is added beyond what the schema (which lacks descriptions) provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool calculates Shannon byte entropy of a file or memory region. The verb 'calculate' is specific, and the resource is well-defined. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pwntools_hexdump or pwntools_elf_read, which do not calculate entropy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides context on when to use: detecting encryption, packing, or embedded data. It does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives, but the use-case is clear and helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating safe read operation. Description adds that it receives a line, but doesn't detail line termination expectations, timeout behavior, or what happens if no newline received. With annotations covering safety, the description provides minimal extra context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence front-loads the key action and resource. Every word is necessary; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema (assumed), the description is functionally sufficient but lacks details like return value type, line delimiter, or error conditions. With sibling tools providing context, some implicit understanding exists, but more completeness would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already describes all three parameters (nbytes, timeout, tube_id) with descriptions. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage is fully documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Receive a single line from an active tube' clearly states the action (receive) and resource (single line from tube), distinguishing it from siblings like pwntools_tube_recv (bytes) and pwntools_tube_recvuntil (until pattern). It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., recv, recvuntil). The purpose implies use for line-oriented input, but missing exclusions or context about line termination, blocking behavior, or tube prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context, stating the core receiving-until-pattern action. It does not elaborate on timeout behavior, default dropping of pattern, or what happens if the pattern is not found. While not contradictory, it adds little beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence: 'Receive data from a tube until a pattern is found.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no superfluous words. This is an appropriate level of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has multiple parameters with schema descriptions and an output schema exists, the description covers the core functionality. However, it omits important behavioral details such as timeout handling and the default 'drop' behavior, which are left to parameter descriptions. This leaves some gaps in understanding the complete tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters (pattern, drop, timeout, tube_id), so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Although context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage, this seems inconsistent; the schema does have descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra parameter insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Receive', the resource 'data from a tube', and the condition 'until a pattern is found', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like pwntools_tube_recv (general receive) and pwntools_tube_recvline (line-based receive). The title in annotations ('Receive Until Pattern') reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pwntools_tube_recv or pwntools_tube_recvline). It only states what it does, leaving usage context implicit. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide limited behavioral info (readOnlyHint=false, etc.). The description adds that the process is paused on attach, which is helpful, but does not disclose side effects or error conditions. More transparency could be added.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a clear args and returns section. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple attach tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential behavior and return value. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for further return details. Minor gap: no mention of prerequisites (e.g., process must exist).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite schema coverage being 0%, the description explains the params argument and the pid field with a clear 'Process ID to attach to' description, adding value beyond the schema's minimal description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Attach the debugger'), the resource ('an already-running process'), and the method ('by PID'). It also distinguishes from siblings like edb_detach_process and edb_run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings include many process control tools, but no comparative context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so safety profile is clear. The description adds modest behavioral context (what fields are shown, return type) but does not disclose any traits beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a return line. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Well front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with good annotations and an output schema (not shown but present), the description adequately covers purpose and contents. It could mention more about prerequisites (e.g., binary must be loaded) but that is implied by 'loaded binary file'. Overall complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline of 4 applies; description adds no param info, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool gets detailed info about the loaded binary file, listing specific aspects (ELF header, architecture, entry point, section layout). It also identifies as equivalent to EDB's BinaryInfo plugin, distinguishing from siblings like edb_get_arch_info or edb_get_section_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like edb_get_arch_info, edb_get_entry_point, or edb_get_section_info. The description merely states it's equivalent to a plugin, but does not clarify when this comprehensive view is preferred over more focused tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds what data is returned (section names, addresses, etc.), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses a structured Args/Returns format. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential aspects. However, it could mention that only loaded modules are considered or what happens if no modules are loaded.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the single parameter 'module' as optional with default of all modules. This adds value beyond the input schema because the schema description coverage is 0% per context, and the description clarifies usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves detailed section information for loaded modules and specifies what data is shown (names, addresses, sizes, file offsets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edb_get_memory_region_info or edb_list_modules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks details about when it is appropriate or when other tools might be better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotence. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide (e.g., no mention of error handling, return value format, or behavior if address is not in a function).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word is informative and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single parameter and an output schema (not shown but present). The description is sufficient for a simple lookup tool, though it could mention behavior for invalid addresses or when no function is found. Overall, it is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the single 'address' parameter with a description ('Address or symbol to find references for'). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Find the function start address containing a given address.' It specifies a verb ('Find'), a resource ('function start address'), and the input context ('containing a given address'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like edb_get_function_bounds or edb_get_function_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (given an address, find function start) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The context is clear but lacks depth for optimal agent decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of replacing bytes adds little new behavioral context. No contradictions, but no significant additional disclosure beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage tip, parameter format, and return type. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and annotations cover destructiveness, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, how to use it, and what it returns. However, it could mention that it modifies the program instructions in memory.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema descriptions fully cover the two parameters (start and end address). The description repeats this with examples, adding marginal value. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool replaces a range of instructions with NOP bytes and identifies it as the primary method for patching out conditional jumps or calls. This distinguishes it from siblings like edb_fill_memory or edb_write_memory, and includes a concrete use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using edb_get_function_bounds to find the range, but does not specify when not to use this tool or list alternative methods for similar tasks. The guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. Description adds that it sends SIGINT but lacks details on side effects, resumption capability, or impact on debugger state. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three succinct sentences: purpose, mechanism, return value. Front-loaded with verb 'Pause'. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given empty schema and simple function, description covers action and return. Missing precondition that program must be running. Otherwise complete for a basic pause tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the action mechanism (SIGINT), which is useful context beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool pauses/interrupts a running program by sending SIGINT. Among siblings like edb_continue and edb_kill_process, this differentiates as an interruption rather than continuation or termination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like edb_kill_process or edb_continue. The description implies use for pausing but does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) already indicate this tool modifies state. The description adds context about the pipeline sequence but does not disclose side effects beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the purpose. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers the pipeline steps adequately. Minor improvement could mention what state is dumped, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has descriptions for all parameters (coverage 100%), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a sequence of actions: load a binary, set breakpoint, run, and dump state. It uses specific verbs and a resource (binary, breakpoint, state) and distinguishes from siblings like edb_load_program, edb_set_breakpoint, edb_run, and edb_dump_state which handle these steps individually.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for a quick pipeline but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the individual sibling tools. No guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds specific behavioral details beyond annotations: it writes a new value to the stack pointer location without altering RSP. This complements the destructiveHint while clarifying the non-destructive effect on RSP. It is consistent with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: four sentences covering core function, menu equivalence, high-level action, and parameter/return details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers essential aspects: function, behavioral trait (no RSP change), parameter, and return type. However, it lacks example usage or error scenarios, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an Args section that repeats the parameter information already present in the schema (e.g., value string with example). Since the schema already clearly describes the parameter, the description adds no new meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool modifies the top-of-stack value without changing RSP, using a specific verb and resource. It also references the EDB menu equivalent, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like edb_stack_pop that alter RSP.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edb_stack_pop or edb_stack_push. The description implies its purpose but does not provide context for when it is appropriate or preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it uses 'pwntools + keystone', which provides backend context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or output format specifics. The description does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately clear. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate. It conveys the core functionality. A brief note on the return format (e.g., 'returns hex bytes as a string') would improve completeness, but it is not critical for an experienced user. The description is sufficient given the available structured fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (arch and code). The natural language description does not add further meaning beyond mentioning the tools used. With schema coverage from the property descriptions, the description meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Assemble assembly instructions into hex bytes using pwntools + keystone.' The verb 'assemble' is specific, and the resource 'assembly instructions' is well-defined. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pwntools_disasm by focusing on assembly rather than disassembly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as pwntools_enc or pwntools_disasm. Usage is implied by the purpose, but no when-not or exclusion criteria are given. Given the large set of sibling tools, some comparative guidance would be helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, clearly indicating the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds context about the types of relocations shown but does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that delivers the essential purpose without filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention the filtering capability of the type_filter parameter, but the schema covers that. The description adequately sets expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('path' and 'type_filter'). The description mentions GOT/PLT and absolute relocations, which relates to filter values, but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is high, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows ELF relocation entries, specifically mentioning GOT/PLT fixups and absolute relocations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pwntools_elf_got and pwntools_elf_plt which focus on specific relocation types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for specific relocation types). No context on prerequisites or when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds little beyond stating the operation. It does not mention error handling for invalid hex strings or handling of spaces, which the schema example hints at.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise for the tool's simple purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that the output is raw bytes (implied by 'decode'), but the output schema likely covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides a clear description for the single parameter 'hex_str' with examples. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('decode'), the resource ('hexadecimal string'), and the result ('raw bytes'). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like pwntools_enhex (encoding).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides the basic purpose but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pwntools_enhex. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate not readOnly and not destructive. Description adds that it sets a temporary breakpoint and runs, providing behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and to the point, with no wasted words. Slightly redundant due to including args section that mirrors schema, but still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (implied return string), the description is complete. It explains the temporary breakpoint behavior and return value. Could add more context about side effects, but sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the address parameter fully (hex or function name). The description repeats the same information, adding no new meaning. Given schema coverage is effectively high, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool continues execution until a specific address is reached, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like edb_continue (which continues without target) and step tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (set a temporary breakpoint and run to that address), but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like edb_continue or step_into. No when-not-to-use or alternative names mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it writes to disk, specifies max size (1MB), and clarifies it's a file output operation. Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, which aligns. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, permissions needed, or effects on the target process, which would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: a single sentence for purpose, a line about use case, then a clean list of parameters. No unnecessary words. Structure follows a natural order: action, context, details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple interface (one parameter object, three fields), the description covers the core action but omits nuances like handling of invalid addresses, file existence, or process state requirements. The output schema exists (confirmation string) but is not detailed. More completeness would include error conditions and prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for address, size, and file_path, including constraints like max 1MB. The description essentially repeats this information without adding new semantics. With high schema coverage, this is adequate but not enhanced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Dump a memory region to a binary file on disk.' It distinguishes from siblings like edb_read_memory (which does not write to disk) by emphasizing the file output. The phrase 'Equivalent to EDB's memory dump feature' provides context and differentiates from other memory-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions usefulness 'for extracting code regions, data sections, or heap contents for offline analysis,' which gives context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., process must be paused) or conditions that would make other tools more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return content (address, prototype, source location) without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences plus structured arg/return details. It avoids verbosity but could be more standard (e.g., using proper JSON schema formatting). It earns its place without excess.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and the annotations, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It does not explain the return format in depth, but that is less critical due to the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes a description for the 'name' property, and the description repeats an example. Although schema description coverage is reported as 0%, the schema itself provides meaning. The description does not add significant new semantic information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get detailed info about a function' and specifies what information is included: address, prototype, source location. The verb 'Get' and resource 'function info' are specific, and the tool is clearly distinguishable from siblings like edb_get_function_bounds or edb_get_function_xrefs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to get function info, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools (e.g., edb_get_function_bounds) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description's addition of 'immediately' and 'force-terminating' adds minor context. No mention of side effects on breakpoints or state, but this is acceptable for a simple kill action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (two sentences plus return type), front-loaded, and clear. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., a note about being terminal), but it is effective and not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameter-less destructive tool, the description covers the action, immediacy, and return. It is complete enough given the output schema exists. No need for elaborate context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (schema is empty, 100% coverage). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters. The description does not need to add parameter info and does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool kills the debugged process immediately, using specific verbs 'Kill' and 'force-terminating'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edb_pause (pause) and edb_restart (restart) by being a terminal action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for termination but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like pausing or stepping. No when-not or sibling comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds context that this is 'equivalent to starting a new debugging session,' implying state changes. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (4 sentences plus args) and front-loaded with the main action. The args section is somewhat redundant but not excessively long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the purpose, parameters, and return value (status string, with output schema present). It is adequate for a connection tool, though it could mention error handling or connection timeout behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover all parameters (host, port, extended), so the baseline is 3. The description's args section merely repeats schema info without adding new meaning or context beyond what is already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Connect to a remote gdbserver for remote debugging' and explains it as equivalent to starting a new debugging session, which distinguishes it from siblings like edb_attach_process (local) or edb_remote_arch (info only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions using extended mode for continuous connection but does not explicitly differentiate from similar remote tools (e.g., edb_remote_arch, edb_remote_info) or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds that it scans for return addresses in valid text ranges, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, highly concise with front-loaded purpose. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given rich annotations and output schema presence, the description is adequately complete. It could mention return format briefly, but annotations cover safety and idempotency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% per context signal, and the description does not mention the 'depth' parameter or its meaning. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, despite the schema itself having a description for depth (possibly a mismatch in context).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool scans the stack for return addresses in valid text ranges, specifying its use in ROP/exploit analysis. This distinguishes it from siblings like edb_get_stack (raw stack) and edb_find_rop_gadgets (gadget search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for ROP/exploit analysis but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools (e.g., edb_get_stack for general stack inspection). It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on potential destructive behavior (e.g., overwriting existing variables). It does clarify that variables are passed to the program, which adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise but includes an Args section that largely duplicates schema information. It is well-structured with clear sections, though it could be slightly more streamlined by removing the formal Args/Returns headers.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (confirmation string) and sibling tools for get/unset, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and effect, though it does not mention whether setting an existing variable overwrites it or if the variable scoping is per-session.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the name and value fields, but the description adds concrete examples ('LD_PRELOAD', 'PATH') and explicitly states that these are variable name and value, adding clarity beyond the schema's generic descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set an environment variable'), specifies the target ('debugged process'), and explains the effect ('passed to the program when it runs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'edb_get_environment' and 'edb_unset_environment_variable' through its imperative verb and explicit resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions equivalence to EDB's process environment configuration but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to set vs get vs unset). The guidance is implied by the tool name and function, but no direct comparisons or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description explains logging effect, ability to enable/disable, and default file path. Annotations already provide hints, and description adds context without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two clear sentences plus structured Args/Returns section. Slightly redundant with schema, but overall concise and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool; description covers purpose, parameters, and return value. Idempotent hint is given. Missing potential side effects like performance impact, but sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already has detailed descriptions for both parameters (enable, file_path). Description adds no extra meaning beyond repeating schema info, so baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool logs all GDB input/output to a file, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings as the only session logging tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description mentions usefulness for session transcripts and debugging, implying when to use. But it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions that for a `call` instruction, the entire function runs then stops, and specifies the return JSON structure. However, it does not discuss side effects such as register or memory changes, or that the program counter advances, which is important for a debugger tool. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds limited behavioral context beyond what is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences and a return type line. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, and the key action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and the presence of many step-related siblings, the description adequately explains the core behavior and return format. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., process must be paused), or the existence of the similar sibling 'edb_step_over_instruction', leaving some context gaps. The output schema covers return values, so that aspect is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. According to guidelines, zero parameters yields a baseline score of 4, and the description adds value by clarifying the operation and return type without needing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it executes one machine instruction and treats calls as atomic, specifying the verb 'execute' and the resource 'machine instruction'. It distinguishes from siblings like step_into by noting atomic call handling, though there is a sibling 'edb_step_over_instruction' which could cause confusion but the description still clarifies the behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'treating calls as atomic', suggesting it is appropriate when stepping over function calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like step_into, step_out, or step_over_instruction, and there is no exclusion or alternative naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about affecting the debugged process but does not elaborate beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and structured with a purpose sentence, usage note, and args/returns section. Efficient but could be more concise by removing redundant parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive annotation and output schema confirmation, the description is complete enough for a tool that unsets an environment variable in a debugger context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% in context (though schema has a description for 'name'), but the tool description repeats the parameter info without adding new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Remove' and resource 'environment variable from the debugged process', distinguishing it from sibling like edb_set_environment_variable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes it is 'useful for clearing variables that may affect program behavior', providing context for use, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read-only operation. The description adds the grouping behavior but does not provide additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover (e.g., performance, output format). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that states the action, resource, and key detail (grouped by type) without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one required parameter and one optional parameter, the description and schema together provide all necessary information. The tool's low complexity means no additional context is needed, especially since an output schema likely documents the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (path: absolute path to ELF binary, gadget_type: gadget category), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any new semantic information beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool searches for ROP gadgets grouped by type, specifying the exact types (syscall, stack_pivot, call, jump). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like pwntools_find_rop (which likely searches gadgets without grouping) and pwntools_build_rop_chain (which builds chains).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool should be used when searching for ROP gadgets of specific types, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., pwntools_find_rop) or provide exclusions. The usage context is clear but lacks direct comparison or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description adds little new behavioral context. It merely confirms the rotation direction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence front-loaded with action and resource. It could include slightly more detail (e.g., 'modular arithmetic') without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple operation and excellent schema descriptions and annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is not mentioning the return type, but an output schema likely exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions cover all parameters (value, shift, bits) with details. The tool description adds the critical direction 'left', which is not in any schema description, enhancing semantic understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (rotate), the resource (integer value), the direction (left), and the parameter (N bits). It distinguishes from the sibling tool pwntools_ror (rotate right).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as pwntools_ror. Usage is implied for left rotation, but no explicit when-not or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms the list operation but doesn't add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations offer. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is complete enough for this simple list operation. No missing information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('list') and the resource ('all active tube connections'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform individual tube operations (send, recv, close) because it lists all connections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like individual tube tools. There is no explicit mention of context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: false, indicating safe, repeatable writes. The description adds the return type ('str: Confirmation') and the concept of being equivalent to a plugin, but does not detail side effects like overwriting existing bookmarks or permission requirements. It complements annotations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at about 4 sentences, front-loading the purpose. The args/returns block is structured and easy to scan. It could be slightly more efficient by removing the 'Args:' heading since it is a single param, but overall it is well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter (an object), the description covers the basics: purpose, parameters with examples, and return type. However, it misses some behavioral details such as whether the bookmark overwrites an existing one with the same name, or that the address is optional (schema shows nullable with default empty). The presence of an output schema (from context) is not utilized to enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has descriptions for both parameters ('Bookmark name (e.g., 'main_loop')' and 'Address to bookmark (e.g., '0x400000')'), so schema description coverage is not 0% as stated. The tool description adds clarity by repeating the examples and structuring the args in a readable format, adding value beyond the schema by explicitly associating 'name' with 'Name' and 'address' with 'Address' and providing concrete examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Save a named bookmark' and the resource 'address for quick navigation'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edb_list_bookmarks and edb_remove_bookmark by being the add operation, and provides context ('Equivalent to EDB's Bookmarks plugin', 'useful for marking key locations during reverse engineering').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('for quick navigation', 'marking key locations during reverse engineering'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., edb_add_comment, edb_label_address). It implies a use case but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by revealing that comments are stored in-memory (ephemeral) and can be listed. It also explains the return type (confirmation string). Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these by implying a non-destructive, repeatable operation. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured. It uses a docstring format with a clear purpose, use-case, parameter details, and return type. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy. Ideal length for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple additive tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, required inputs, and output. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that comments are not persistent across sessions (though 'in-memory' implies this). The presence of an output schema (confirmation string) is noted. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (address format, comment example). The description restates these but adds a concrete example for the comment ('NOP sled start'). Since schema coverage is effectively 100% (descriptions in properties), the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add', the resource 'text annotation to an address', and the context 'reverse engineering session'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edb_remove_comment and edb_list_comments by focusing on the creation action. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by stating it's useful for documenting analysis findings and mentions the complementary tool edb_list_comments. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if comments need to be persistent) or provide alternatives among siblings like edb_label_address. The guidance is adequate but lacks exclusionary information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that blocks are identified at branch/jump/call/ret instructions and that output includes instruction count per block, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with only three sentences and an Args section. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers inputs and basic output (string listing). With an output schema present, detailed return format is not needed. However, it lacks information on error conditions or behavior with very large regions, leaving a minor gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameters with brief descriptions (address, size) which largely duplicate what is already in the input schema. The schema already provides rich descriptions (e.g., 'Start address (e.g., 0x400000 or function name)'), so the description adds minimal new semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it analyzes a code region and identifies basic blocks, specifying the verb 'Analyze' and resource 'basic blocks'. It provides additional detail about block boundaries (branch/jump/call/ret) and equivalence to EDB's Analyzer plugin, distinguishing it from other analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for basic block detection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like edb_analyze_calls_at, edb_analyze_heap, or edb_analyze_region. No when-not-to-use or exclusionary guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to cover safety. It adds useful behavioral detail about resolving targets for call, jmp, jz, jnz, which goes beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear front-loading of the tool's action. The Args/Returns section is somewhat redundant given the schema, but overall it is structured efficiently without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and an output schema (return type str), the description covers the input (address) and output (instructions with resolved targets) adequately. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides an Args section that repeats schema information (address parameter) and adds minimal context. Since the top-level 'params' parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), the description partially compensates, but the nested address parameter already has a schema description. No new semantic meaning beyond the schema is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it disassembles at an address and identifies call/jump targets, differentiating it from other analysis tools like edb_disassemble and edb_instruction_detail. Specific verbs (disassemble, identify, resolve) and resource (address) are clearly defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for control flow analysis and branch target understanding ('Essential for control flow analysis') but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools (e.g., edb_disassemble, edb_find_references). The guidance is present but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond that by explaining the tool is equivalent to EDB's Analyzer, shows control flow information, and returns analysis with counts. It also specifies the address format and default size.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with key information front-loaded. Each sentence serves a purpose: tool action, equivalence, control flow info, then Args and Returns. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, parameters, and return type. It lacks error handling details or edge cases, but for a read-only analysis tool, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameters with types and defaults, but the input schema already contains descriptions for address and size. The description adds the return value type. Schema description coverage is effectively non-zero due to schema's own descriptions, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes a code region for call instructions, branch instructions, and strings, equivalent to EDB's Analyzer plugin. It distinguishes from siblings like edb_analyze_basic_blocks and edb_analyze_calls_at by focusing on region-level analysis for specific instruction types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for analyzing code regions to get instruction counts and control flow, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like edb_analyze_calls_at or edb_analyze_basic_blocks. No when-not guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the process continues running independently, which is not covered by the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences plus return type. The key action is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter detach action, the description covers the essential effect (detach and process continues). However, it omits details like what happens to breakpoints or debugger state, which could be relevant for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-specific information, but it does mention the return type (str confirmation), which is helpful. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Detach from the debugged process' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It further clarifies that the process continues running independently, distinguishing it from kill or pause operations among sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for detaching from a process, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pause or kill. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the breakpoint persists but is inactive and can be re-enabled. Annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent, which the description reinforces without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences plus structured args/returns, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, the description covers key behaviors, return type, and re-enabling capability. Annotations provide idempotent/non-destructive hints, making it sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mirrors the schema, providing minimal added value. Schema already includes description for the number parameter. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool disables a breakpoint without removing it, distinguishing it from removal tools like edb_remove_breakpoint. It also mentions it can be re-enabled later, setting it apart from permanent removal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (disable vs. remove) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It mentions re-enabling later, but lacks direct guidance on when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and adds context that the tool reactivates disabled breakpoints. It does not contradict annotations, and provides sufficient transparency for a simple operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear single-purpose statement followed by parameter and return details. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and return. It does not explain idempotency or side effects, but these are covered by annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description re-iterates the parameter name and type but adds little beyond the schema's existing description ('Breakpoint ID number'). Schema coverage is low, but the description compensates minimally.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Re-activate a disabled breakpoint' clearly states the verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like edb_disable_breakpoint, edb_set_breakpoint, and edb_remove_breakpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a breakpoint is disabled but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Given the simple nature, it's adequate but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about searching from current PC, but doesn't describe side effects or limitations beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a returns line. Every sentence is meaningful and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It explains what and where it searches and what it returns. The only minor gap is defining 'current code region' precisely, but that's tolerable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics since none are needed, which is adequate. Baseline 4 for 0 params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds printable ASCII strings in the current code region, starting from the current PC. It directly specifies the verb (find) and resource (strings), distinguishing it from siblings like edb_get_string and edb_process_strings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for the current code region but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., edb_process_strings for full memory, pwntools_elf_strings for static strings). No when-not or alternatives guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it shows architecture information but does not introduce new behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover. It adequately reinforces the safe nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and provide a reference. Every word serves a purpose, and no extraneous information is included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the main purpose. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., the tool requires an active debugged process) and does not state whether it can be called at any time. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% vacuously). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline score for 0 parameters is 4. The description briefly mentions what is retrieved, which aligns with the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves architecture information about the debugged process and binary, listing specific details like CPU architecture and binary type. The name itself is specific, and the description distinguishes it from other info tools like edb_get_binary_info by focusing on architecture.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'Equivalent to EDB's BinaryInfo plugin,' which provides a reference but does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites, though the simple parameterless nature implies straightforward use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns bounds and mentions a patching use case, which provides some additional context but does not significantly extend beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two sentences covering purpose and use case, plus a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple query tool with one parameter and a string return, the description covers the essential information. The return is vaguely described as 'Start address, end address, and size' without specifying format (e.g., hex), but it is still understandable. The presence of an output schema (implied) may fill this gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema description coverage is 0% according to context, the input schema includes a description for the 'name' parameter. The tool description restates this in the Args section, adding no new information. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves the start address, end address, and size of a function. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'bounds' and mentions a use case, making the purpose distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a use case ('understanding function layout and selecting regions for patching'), offering context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the use case is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it shows memory map details but does not disclose any unexpected behaviors (e.g., potential stops or state changes). With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: one sentence for the analogy, one for the content, and one for the return type. There is no redundancy, and every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema (implied), the description sufficiently covers the purpose and output. However, it could briefly mention that it reads from the target process memory or that it is non-intrusive, but overall it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description explains the output format, which is the primary semantic need. For zero-parameter tools, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds value by clarifying the return value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the process memory map, analogous to /proc/pid/maps, and enumerates the contents (address ranges, permissions, offset, paths). It is distinct from sibling tools like edb_read_memory or edb_get_memory_region_info due to its focus on the full mapped region overview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for inspecting memory layout but lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings like edb_get_memory_region_info. The context is inferred but not directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns a JSON string with hex values, which is not in annotations. However, it does not disclose performance implications or other behavioral traits. Since annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose; the second provides return type information. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior. It mentions the return format, which is helpful. Almost fully complete for a simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add value beyond the schema. Per the guidelines, 0 parameters means baseline 4. No additional meaning needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it gets all CPU register values as JSON, listing specific register types. This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like edb_get_register (single register) or edb_get_eflags (flags only). The verb 'Get' and resource 'all CPU register values' are precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when all register values are needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edb_get_register, edb_get_simd_state). There are no when-not or exclusion criteria mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) already signal no destructive side effects. The description adds that it reads a null-terminated string but does not disclose potential errors, permissions, or edge cases. It adds minimal context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus bulleted parameters. No redundant text, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (returns string), the description doesn't need to detail returns. It explains the null-terminated interpretation. Missing: error handling (invalid addresses, non-null-terminated strings) and that it reads from target process memory, but overall sufficient for a focused tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds example address format and max_length range (1-4096, default 256) beyond schema's own descriptions. With schema coverage at 0% per context, this compensation is valuable, though it could include more detail on parameter behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read a null-terminated string from a memory address' and explains it interprets memory as a C string. This distinguishes it from siblings like edb_read_memory (raw bytes) and edb_read_memory_as (typed read).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading C strings but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use. No exclusion criteria or when-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as readOnly and idempotent. The description adds the 'current scope' context but does not disclose behavior for missing variables or other edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two sentences for purpose and well-organized Args/Returns sections. Every word adds value, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only variable tool, the description covers purpose, parameter, and return. It does not mention error handling or variable existence, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations and output schema, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear Args block with parameter name, type, and examples (e.g., 'i', 'argc', 'buffer'), adding value beyond the schema. It also documents the return type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'local or global variable in the current scope'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'edb_set_variable' (which writes), and from other read tools like 'get_register'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what it does (read a variable) but does not explicitly mention when to use it vs. alternatives like 'edb_set_variable' for writing, or 'edb_get_locals' for all locals. No exclusions or context hints are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the output includes function names, addresses, and prototypes, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes an Args/Returns section in a clear format. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return type. It mentions the output contains names, addresses, and prototypes. No obvious gaps for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter with a description for 'filter_str'. The tool description repeats this information and adds example filter strings, which provides marginal additional value. Schema description coverage is reported as 0% but the schema actually includes a description, so the baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List all functions in the binary' and the resource 'functions', with optional filtering by name. It distinguishes from sibling list tools for other resources (e.g., bookmarks, breakpoints) and mentions equivalence to a plugin for additional context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing functions with optional filtering but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use. It relies on the tool's name and context from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing what type information is returned (complete type definition, struct members, function signatures), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with a brief purpose statement, equivalent command reference, and clear Args/Returns sections. Slight redundancy in Args due to schema duplication, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only query tool with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the return type and gives examples, making it complete for an AI agent to understand usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, expression, is described in the schema with examples. The tool description's Args section largely repeats this information, adding minimal new semantic value. With schema description coverage stated as 0% (though the schema includes a description), the extra examples in the description provide some benefit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool prints the type of a variable, function, or expression, and compares it to GDB's ptype command, making the purpose unambiguous. It also specifies that it shows complete type definitions including struct/class members, distinguishing it from simpler type queries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for inspecting type definitions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edb_whatis or other context. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description confirms the read-only nature but adds no additional behavioral insight beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention that a connection is required, but that is implied by 'connected'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable because there are none. Baseline for no parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: detecting the architecture of a connected remote GDB target. It uses a specific verb ('detect') and resource ('architecture of remote target'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'edb_get_arch_info' by specifying 'remote'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a remote target is connected but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it could mention that 'edb_get_arch_info' is for local targets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc., so description adds minimal behavioral context. It confirms read-only nature without detail on output, but output schema handles that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no extraneous words. Highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description is adequate for a simple read-only tool with no parameters and an output schema. Could add more context on when to use it, but it's largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4, as description doesn't need to add parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Show' and the resource 'detailed information about the remote debugging target', distinguishing it from siblings like edb_remote_arch (shows only architecture) and edb_inferior_info (local inferior).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates usage for remote target info, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to related tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description uses 'permanently remove' which aligns with destructiveHint=true annotation. It does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations and output schema (confirmation string) provide. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear opening, a helpful tip, and a parameter block. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple removal tool, the description covers the purpose, prerequisite (list breakpoints), and parameter. The output schema indicates a confirmation string, so no further info needed. Complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a structured Args section that mirrors the input schema. Since the schema already documents the parameter (with description 'Breakpoint ID number'), the description adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Permanently remove a breakpoint or watchpoint by number') and distinguishes from sibling tools like edb_set_breakpoint or edb_disable_breakpoint by specifying 'remove' and recommending edb_list_breakpoints to find numbers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using edb_list_breakpoints to find breakpoint numbers, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like temporarily disabling a breakpoint. Still, the context is clear and helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds context about region bounds and default parameters, and clarifies the return type, complementing annotations well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, well-structured with a brief intro and a clear bulleted list for parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical info is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only search tool with output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters with defaults, and the return value. It is complete and sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains all three parameters with examples and default values (e.g., default address $pc, default length 0x10000) that are not present in the schema, adding significant value beyond the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches memory for a byte pattern and returns addresses of occurrences. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edb_search_instructions or edb_find_strings, which might cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description only states the operation without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the condition determines when the breakpoint triggers and that setting an empty condition removes it. It also mentions equivalence to a UI button, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences covering purpose, equivalent action, and parameter/return details. It is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers function. It explains condition removal and provides an example, though it lacks error handling or state change details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already contains descriptions for both parameters (number and condition). The description's 'Args' section essentially repeats this information with a minor example. Since schema coverage is high, the description adds limited additional semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set or remove a condition on an existing breakpoint' and equates it to EDB's DialogBreakpoints condition button. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like edb_set_breakpoint or edb_set_breakpoint_ignore_count.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the breakpoint must already exist but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or contexts where removing a condition is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it uses GDB's `mem` command, which gives implementation detail but not safety warnings or side effects. It lacks disclosure of potential consequences like crash risks or permission conflicts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences and a bulleted Args list. The purpose is front-loaded. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but it effectively communicates without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a permissions tool with destructive potential, the description is adequate but lacks mention of error conditions or prerequisites. The output schema exists and returns a string, so that is covered. However, given the open-world and destructive hints, more context on safe usage would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite schema description coverage being reported as 0%, the description's Args section explains all three parameters with examples and defaults, adding value beyond the schema's own descriptions. The parameters are clearly defined and match the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets memory permissions for a region with a specific verb 'Set' and resource 'memory permissions for a region'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edb_write_memory by focusing on permissions, not data, and provides context via equivalence to EDB's dialog and GDB's mem command.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for modifying memory permissions by referencing the standard dialog and GDB command. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like edb_write_memory or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough for an agent familiar with debugging concepts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that the tool executes a single instruction and enters function calls on a 'call' instruction. It also discloses the return format (JSON with address, function, file, line). Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, which this aligns with.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences for the action and one line for the return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with zero parameters and an output schema that explains the return, the description is complete. It covers the action, the special case of call instructions, and the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description correctly does not need to add parameter details, earning the baseline score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it executes one machine instruction and steps into function calls, distinguishing it from step-over/out tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `edb_step_instruction`, which might be similar but without function call entry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the current instruction is a call and one wants to enter the called function, but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools like `edb_step_over` or `edb_step_out`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, meaning execution state changes. The description adds that it returns the stop location, but does not disclose what gets modified (e.g., registers, memory) or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus return type specification, front-loaded, and contains zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and a straightforward action, the description covers the core functionality. However, it omits context like required state (must be inside a function) and error conditions (e.g., no caller).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters are defined, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Execute until the current function returns to its caller.' It specifies the verb (execute) and resource (current function) and distinguishes from sibling stepping tools like edb_step_into and edb_step_over.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when wanting to exit the current function and stop at the caller, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds minimal extra transparency beyond confirming it stops a session. No side effects or prerequisites are described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of six words, perfectly efficient and front-loaded with the key action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple stop operation. However, minimal context about when to use (e.g., after trace_start) could improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description correctly adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline of 4 applies per guidelines for zero-param tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and the resource ('current execution trace session'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like edb_trace_start and edb_trace_show.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance is provided. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention that it should be used after starting a trace or what happens if no trace is active.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds that the conversion is essential for patching but does not elaborate on error handling or edge cases. With annotations, the added behavioral context is moderate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences plus structured args/returns), front-loaded with the core action, and uses clear formatting. Every element serves a purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It could mention potential error cases or format requirements for the input, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the 'address' parameter as a hex string with an example. The tool description repeats this and adds the return format. Since schema coverage is effectively 100% (despite context signal), the description provides minimal additional semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Convert' and specifies the exact transformation from virtual address to file offset. It distinguishes itself from siblings like edb_file_offset_to_va by mentioning its essential role in applying patches, providing a distinct purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly suggests usage when applying patches to binaries, which is a specific context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. For a simple conversion, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by specifying exactly which security properties are checked, going beyond the generic annotation hints. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and lists the specific properties checked. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention that the output is a structured report of the security properties, but the output schema presumably handles that. The briefness is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'path' already has a clear description in the schema ('Absolute path to the ELF binary'). The tool description does not add new information about this parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check security properties of an ELF binary' and lists specific properties (RELRO, Canary, NX, PIE, RPATH/RUNPATH, FORTIFY). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like pwntools_analyze_elf or pwntools_elf_sections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for checking security properties, there is no mention of when not to use it or comparison to other ELF analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating the tool is safe and non-mutating. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond 'compare', which aligns with annotations but does not enrich the agent's understanding of side effects or output behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It is front-loaded with no extraneous words, earning its place without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks details about the diff output format or potential edge cases, but the output schema likely fills that gap. Almost complete for a straightforward comparison tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (path_a, path_b, sections_only), achieving high schema coverage. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool compares two ELF binaries and specifies the scope: sections, segments, symbols. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('ELF binaries'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects like pwntools_elf_sections or pwntools_elf_segments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for a broad comparison, and sibling tools exist for specific aspects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using pwntools_elf_sections for section-only comparisons. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds that output is a hex dump, which is useful behavioral context. No contradictions. It could mention that size is limited to 4096 (from schema) but that's already in schema. Overall, good disclosure beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential information without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (reading bytes from an ELF) and presence of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate. It specifies the input (section or address) and output (hex dump). It could mention that the tool is for static analysis and not for debugging, but the context from sibling tools implies that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (path, size, offset, section) with min/max constraints. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the high-level purpose. Since schema coverage is high (descriptions present), baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read bytes from an ELF binary at a section or address, with hex dump output.' This is a specific verb (read) and resource (ELF binary), with scope (section or address) and output format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pwntools_elf_sections or pwntools_elf_search which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for reading raw bytes from an ELF, but it does not explicitly guide when to use vs alternatives like pwntools_elf_sections for listing sections or pwntools_elf_strings for strings. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the destructive write nature ('write it to memory') and fallback behavior, which adds context beyond annotations (destructiveHint: true). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is fairly concise with a clear structure (main action, args list with examples, return). Slightly repetitive in the args section, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description covers the main functionality and fallback mechanism. It lacks details on prerequisites or error handling, but is adequate for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (address and instruction), so the description adds little extra. However, it provides examples and fallback info, which slightly enhances understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it assembles an instruction and writes to memory, distinguishing it from siblings like edb_disassemble or pwntools_asm. It also specifies the resource and action, and mentions equivalence to EDB's Assembler plugin.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context about using keystone engine and fallback, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs similar tools like pwntools_asm. It lacks when-not or exclusion scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds useful behavioral context (byte-by-byte, differences shown) but does not go beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with purpose. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple comparison tool with detailed parameters in schema and a readable output format, the description covers the essentials. It could mention edge cases or error conditions, but it is complete enough for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (address1, address2, count). The description's Args section merely repeats this information without adding new semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool compares two memory regions byte-by-byte and shows differences. It provides specific use cases (self-modifying code, comparing loaded vs original code, binary patches) and distinguishes from siblings like edb_compare_sections and edb_binary_diff.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context by listing example scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, so it lacks exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the output is a markdown string, but does not disclose additional context such as whether the dump is from the current debugging session. It is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, with two sentences covering purpose and return value. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it does and what it returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the schema fully covers them. The description does not need to add parameter information; baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a human-readable register dump in markdown table format, specifying contents (general-purpose registers, instruction pointer, flags). This distinguishes it from siblings like edb_get_registers or edb_get_register.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining a formatted register view but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like edb_get_registers or edb_enum_registers, nor does it provide conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is a one-shot snapshot, which is consistent but does not significantly supplement what annotations convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences that front-load the core information, provide an equivalent, and include a return type. No redundant or unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and existing output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns, leaving no gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. Description adds context about what the dump includes, but this pertains to output rather than input parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it dumps complete debugger state listing all components (registers, instruction, stack, etc.). It distinguishes itself by being comprehensive and equivalent to EDB's DumpState plugin, differentiating from specific getters among sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies when to use (when a full snapshot is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives such as using individual getters like edb_get_registers or edb_get_backtrace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it is equivalent to EDB's GraphWidget, outputs DOT format, and shows edges between basic blocks, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with only three sentences, front-loading the purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, equivalence, rendering advice, and parameter summary. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, output format, and usage hints. It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has high description coverage (both address and size have descriptions). The description repeats the parameter names and schema defaults but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a Control Flow Graph in Graphviz DOT format, using a specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'Control Flow Graph'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edb_disassemble_range and edb_get_function_info by focusing on CFG generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions rendering instructions for the output DOT, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but lacks explicit guidance on trade-offs or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by noting the tool is equivalent to a command-line invocation and that it generates a symbol map string, which is not covered by annotations. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two sentences plus args/returns) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no superfluous detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input, existing annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It explains the use case and equivalent command, though it does not describe error cases or the format of the symbol map beyond 'str'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description restates the schema's parameter description ('path (str): Binary file path (default: loaded binary)') without adding new meaning. Schema description coverage is 0% because the description block does not document parameters beyond repeating the schema, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a symbol map for a binary file, using the verb 'generate' and specifying the resource 'symbol map'. It additionally provides the equivalent command line and the use case for stripped binaries, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'edb_load_symbol_file' which loads symbols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (for creating symbol maps for stripped binaries) but does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives. The context is clear, but there is no comparative guidance against siblings like 'pwntools_elf_symbols' or 'edb_get_binary_info'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive hint. The description adds useful specifics: frame structure (number, address, function name, source location) and return type, exceeding annotation info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, efficient with no redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers functionality and return format sufficiently for a simple, read-only, parameterless introspection tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly omits param details, meeting baseline for zero-param tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the full call stack backtrace and specifies frame #0 as the current function, distinguishing it from other stack tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 edb_get_stack or edb_get_stack_frame; lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the context of typical _start symbol and return format, providing some additional behavioral clarity beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, front-loading the core purpose, then providing context and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless tool with comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description covers the purpose, behavior, and return format adequately. No gaps are evident given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms no input is needed and specifies the return type, adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the program entry point address, explains what the entry point is, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on this specific address. It is a specific verb+resource combination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing the entry point address, but it does not explicitly contrast with other information-retrieval tools like edb_get_binary_info or edb_get_function_info. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the returned registers and linking to a UI category, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence provides essential information: it gets FPU state, equivalent to a UI view, lists specific registers, and notes the return type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with output schema and annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. No gaps remain for the agent to misinterpret.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter information. Baseline is 4; the description correctly omits any unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves FPU register state, lists specific registers (ST0-ST7, control, status, tag), and references a known UI view ('RegisterViewModel FPU category'), making the tool's role unambiguous even among many register-related siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for FPU state but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like edb_get_registers or edb_get_simd_state. No guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds that the return is a formatted string, providing some behavioral info beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Short and to the point, but could be more structured. No fluff, but did not earn every sentence as it includes a 'Returns:' label.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and a clear output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and return type.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the description cannot add parameter meaning; baseline of 4 applies as per rubric for 0 params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all breakpoints, watchpoints, and their status, distinguishing it from siblings like edb_list_breakpoint_types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, but the purpose is straightforward and the tool is simple enough that usage is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds the list of breakpoint types but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and existence of an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It clearly states what the tool does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by enumerating the breakpoint types, adding value beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List supported breakpoint types') and provides examples (software, hardware, watchpoint, catchpoint). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on context or exclusions relative to other list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds details about the content of the feature list but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what is already clear from annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences and a return type. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and its purpose. No additional context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail; baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists GDB debugger features and capabilities, specifying version, build configuration, and Python modules. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on other actions like breakpoints or memory operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to inspect debugger capabilities but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the behavior: 'Current line is marked with '->'' and 'Reads directly from the source file if available.' It also specifies the return type (str), which is not in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three lines of explanation followed by a structured parameter listing. It avoids redundancy and is well-organized, though the parameter details could be more compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (single parameter object with 3 nested fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter constraints, and return type. It could mention error handling or edge cases, but it is sufficiently complete for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description lists all parameters (file, line, count) with defaults and constraints (1-200 for count). This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic descriptions like 'Source file path'. The description compensates for the lack of schema-level description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Display source code with line numbers' and specifies the current line marker. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools like edb_disassemble or edb_dump_state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to view source code) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks usage context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context about supported file formats and the fact that it modifies the debugged program's symbol table. No contradictions exist. Additional details about the operation (e.g., equivalence to GDB commands) enhance transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, equivalence, supported formats, parameter details, and return type. It is not overly verbose but uses a docstring format (Args/Returns) which, while clear, adds some redundancy. Overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers input parameters and return value. It explains supported formats and usage context. No major gaps identified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage per context, but the description's docstring explains both parameters (file_path and address) with usage context (e.g., 'for add-symbol-file with .o/.so'). This adds meaning beyond the minimal schema descriptions. The description compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Load a symbol file') and the target ('for the debugged program'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning equivalence to EDB's FasLoader and GDB's symbol-file commands, and lists supported formats (ELF debug info, FAS, separated debug symbols). The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage by comparing to FasLoader and symbol-file, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like edb_generate_symbols or edb_lookup_symbol. No 'when not to use' or conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying mutation. The description details the three modes but lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., performance impact, persistence, limits). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: brief purpose, mode list, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers core functionality and parameters. However, it does not describe error cases or constraints (e.g., what expressions are valid). The return value is minimally described as 'Watchpoint details'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains both parameters with examples and enum values, adding significant value beyond the schema. Schema descriptions exist but the tool description clarifies usage and syntax.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set a watchpoint') and resource ('to monitor memory access'), listing three modes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like breakpoints by focusing on memory access monitoring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides three modes with default and examples, but does not explicitly state when to use a watchpoint over alternatives (e.g., hardware breakpoints or tracepoints). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms it modifies memory. It adds the context of patching but does not disclose further behavioral traits like permission requirements or potential side effects beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a brief Args section. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and every element contributes to understanding the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple write tool with output schema indicating a confirmation string and annotations covering destructive nature, the description provides sufficient context. It includes use case, parameter examples, and return value, making it complete given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has descriptions for both parameters (address and data) with examples. The description repeats similar examples and adds a minor use hint (NOP), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool writes a value to a memory address and is used for patching code or data. The verb 'write' and resource 'memory address' are specific, and the use case differentiates it from similar tools like edb_read_memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions using the tool for patching code or data, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare it with alternatives such as edb_write_memory_bytes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description confirms this with 'write raw hex bytes' and mentions the return value (confirmation of byte count). It adds value by specifying hex format examples, but does not detail potential risks like invalid addresses or memory protection violations, which would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a usage hint, and an Args block with parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses minimal words, earning its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers write operation and return type. However, it omits critical context such as the need for memory to be writable, potential crashes on invalid addresses, and interaction with process state (e.g., required paused state). This lack of completeness could lead to failed tool invocations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for 'address' and 'hex_bytes', giving example formats. The description reinforces these with similar examples (e.g., '0x400000', '90 90 90'). Since schema_description_coverage is reported as 0% (though the schema does contain descriptions), the description partially compensates but does not fully explain expected formats beyond basic examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool writes raw hex bytes to memory starting at an address, and explicitly mentions use cases like patching NOP sleds or shellcode. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edb_fill_memory (which fills with a pattern) and edb_write_memory (which may write other data types).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for patching multiple bytes but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edb_fill_memory for single-byte fills, edb_fill_memory for patterns). It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., memory must be writable) and exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no new behavioral details beyond the basic operation, which is acceptable given the annotations' coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple packing function, the description combined with the schema and annotations provides complete context. The output schema (not shown) further covers return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (size, value, endian), so the tool description doesn't need to add more. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'pack' and the resource 'integer into bytes', with examples (p64, p32, p16). It effectively distinguishes from the unpack sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for packing integers for binary exploitation tasks. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is straightforward and the sibling tools (like pwntools_unpack) provide contrast.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. Description adds context (equivalent to BinaryString widget, returns all representations) without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise and well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, then parameter list, then return. Every sentence adds value with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return type. Lacks explicit behavior when multiple inputs provided (e.g., conversion direction). Output schema exists but not shown; description states return as 'str: All representations' which is somewhat vague but adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema already provides detailed descriptions for each field with examples. Description repeats some examples but adds no new meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Convert between hex, ASCII, and UTF-16 representations' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like edb_get_string and edb_find_strings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('useful for preparing data for memory patches or analyzing strings') and precondition ('provide at least one of...'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sufficient for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior (exporting to disk) and idempotency is hinted by annotations (idempotentHint=true). It adds context about being equivalent to EDB's built-in feature. No contradiction with annotations; destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false align with a non-destructive export operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three lines of purpose and a clear args/returns section. It is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary information, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., bulleted arg description). Overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, well-defined output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, file format, import counterpart, parameter requirement, and return type. The output schema details the return, so this is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a description for the file_path parameter ('Full path to breakpoint file (JSON)'). The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 given schema coverage. No additional parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Export all breakpoints to a JSON file', identifies the specific resource (breakpoints), and distinguishes from the sibling tool edb_breakpoint_import by mentioning reload. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states that breakpoints can be reloaded later with edb_breakpoint_import, providing usage context and pairing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the sibling pairing is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds specific behavioral context: it detects modifications (self-modifying code, patches) and returns a string. No contradiction with annotations, and the disclosure is useful beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences: purpose, detection capability, and equivalence. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It specifies the return type but could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., 'all loaded sections'). Overall, it provides sufficient context for selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It implicitly indicates that the tool uses the current process state without requiring additional input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool compares loaded memory sections with the original binary on disk to detect modifications. The verb 'compare' and specific resource ('loaded memory sections with the original binary') are explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like edb_binary_diff (binary vs binary) and edb_compare_memory (memory regions) by specifying the comparison target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for detecting self-modifying code and patches, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edb_binary_diff or edb_compare_memory. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, making the safety profile clear. The description adds that it only shows regions defined with edb_set_memory_permissions, which is a useful scope clarification but not extensive behavioral disclosure beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences front-loaded with core purpose, then an analogy, then return type. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters, strong annotation coverage, and an output schema existing, the description covers the tool's purpose and scope adequately. It could elaborate on the format of the returned string, but that is likely in the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline score is 4 for no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get information about defined memory regions and their permissions' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by clarifying it shows regions defined with edb_set_memory_permissions, unlike generic memory map tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by equating to EDB's DialogMemoryRegions view, implying it is for viewing permissions of regions set via edb_set_memory_permissions. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to other memory tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the returned content (bytes, opcode, operands) and the default address ($pc), which are beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a reference to an equivalent plugin, and a clear Args/Returns block. No redundant information, and it is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the input parameter, return type, and content. It is mostly complete but lacks details about error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid addresses). Given the complexity, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains a single parameter with a description ('Address to inspect (default: $pc)'), but schema description coverage is reported as 0%, likely indicating the description is not in the schema itself. The tool's description repeats this and adds the default value, providing clarity beyond what the raw schema would offer. Given the low coverage, the description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to get detailed information about an instruction at a given address. It mentions specific content (bytes, assembly, addressing modes, register operands) and distinguishes itself by referencing the InstructionInspector plugin, differentiating it from siblings like edb_disassemble or edb_get_current_instruction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use the tool (to inspect an instruction in detail) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. While the sibling list includes similar tools (e.g., edb_get_current_instruction), no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer usage contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns a confirmation string, but does not disclose if labels are overwritten or other side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear structure: purpose, equivalence, benefit, then documented Args and Returns. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (set label at address) and the description covers purpose, parameters, and return. With an output schema available, the minimal return description is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite schema description coverage being 0%, the description includes Args section with examples for address and label, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a label at an address in the disassembly view, with a specific verb 'set' and resource 'label/annotation at an address'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like edb_add_comment by providing an equivalence to EDB's CPU context menu.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by equating the action to a menu item, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like bookmarks or comments, nor does it include exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it shows specific fields and returns a string, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a return type line. It front-loads the main action and omits any fluff, making it easy to quickly understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about what the tool returns. It could mention that it lists modules for the current process, but the context is implicit from the tool name and siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly has no parameter info. No additional meaning needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'List all shared libraries / modules loaded by the process.' It specifies the output fields (base address, text size, path), which distinguishes it from other listing tools like edb_list_functions or edb_list_breakpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates use when you need information about loaded shared libraries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many list tools, but its purpose is straightforward and non-overlapping.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral details about what information is shown (stop, print notification, passed to program), going beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: three sentences plus args/returns. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and adds necessary detail without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, and basic usage context. It lacks mention of prerequisites or scenarios, but given the annotations and output schema existence, it is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description redundantly restates the parameter from the schema ('signal: Specific signal to query (default: all)') but adds a return value description ('str: Signal list with handling info'). With schema coverage apparently 0% but schema having a description, the marginal value is limited; the return info provides some additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists signals and how GDB handles them, specifying it shows which signals cause stop, print notification, and are passed to the program. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edb_signal_handling which likely sets signal handling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description indicates it is equivalent to EDB's signal configuration view, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list implies other signal-related tools exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it resolves symbols and prepares execution, providing positive behavioral context. No contradiction, but it could also mention that loading clears previous state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear first sentence summarizing the purpose, followed by detailed sections for parameters and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given it is the first step in debugging and the output schema likely describes the return, the description is adequate. It could mention error handling or prerequisites, but the current detail is sufficient for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both 'path' and 'args' parameters. The description restates them in a structured 'Args' section, adding minimal new meaning. With schema description coverage apparently non-zero, baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool loads an executable binary for debugging, resolves symbols, and prepares for execution. It identifies itself as the mandatory first step, distinguishing it from other debugging tools like edb_load_symbol_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'This is the mandatory first step for debugging a new binary,' which tells when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the context implies it is the starting point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true. The description adds behavioral details: the tool kills and restarts, reloads the binary, preserves breakpoints, and returns a status string. This provides useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a return type line. Every sentence provides essential information without waste. It is front-loaded with action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, no-parameter tool, the description covers the key action and effect (kill, restart, reload binary, preserve breakpoints). The return type is noted. It could mention potential side effects (e.g., loss of runtime state) but overall is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. No further detail required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'Kill and restart the debugged program. Reloads the binary, preserves breakpoints.' This is a specific verb (restart) and resource (debugged program), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like edb_kill_process (no restart) and edb_run (does not preserve breakpoints).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a restart is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like edb_run (which starts from scratch) or edb_kill_process (which only kills). No when-not or exclusionary guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the core behavior (backward continuation to breakpoint/event) and a key prerequisite. Does not contradict annotations. Could be enhanced with more detail on failure modes or exact state changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus a return type line. Every part is necessary and front-loaded with the primary action. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and annotations providing some context, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and return type. It is adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter information beyond what is already present. Baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Continue execution backward to the previous breakpoint or event,' specifying a unique action that distinguishes it from forward continuation and other reverse commands like edb_reverse_step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit prerequisite: 'Requires GDB recording to be active (target record-full).' Also states 'Useful for rewinding to find where state changed,' implying when to use. No explicit alternatives, but sibling differentiation is implied by action type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it stops at the first breakpoint and returns a status string. Annotations already indicate non-read-only behavior, but the description clarifies the stopping condition and return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences and a returns line. Every part is relevant and there is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters and the description covers the main behavior and return value. It could mention other stopping conditions (e.g., segfault), but for a simple run command it is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by explaining the action and return type, which is sufficient since there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it starts execution from the beginning and stops at the first breakpoint. The verb 'Start execution' is specific and the resource 'loaded program' is implied. It distinguishes from similar tools like 'continue' (which resumes) and 'step' (which moves instruction-by-instruction).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It is implied that it should be used after loading a program but lacks explicit guidance. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context about what gets restored (breakpoints, etc.), aligning with the destructive nature. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a summary of restored components without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (one parameter, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema (indicated but not shown), the description covers the necessary context, though it lacks error handling or authorization details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite schema description coverage of 0% (per context), the description lists the parameter and its type, adding value by clarifying the file_path argument. The schema itself has a description, so the description's contribution is marginal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool loads a debugging session from a JSON file, specifies what it restores (breakpoints, bookmarks, comments, binary path, arguments), and distinguishes it from siblings like edb_session_save.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for loading a previously saved session, and the sibling edb_session_save provides contrast. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructiveness. The description adds behavioral context by stating that subsequent commands apply to the selected thread, which is a key side effect. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of two sentences plus a structured args/returns section. Every sentence is relevant and there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple thread-switching tool, the description covers the main action and effect. Missing information includes references to listing threads (edb_list_threads) for valid IDs and error handling, but the tool is straightforward. An output schema exists but is not detailed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description repeats the schema's parameter description ('Thread ID to switch to') but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Switch the debugger context') and the resource ('a different thread'), and explicitly notes that subsequent commands apply to the selected thread, distinguishing it from sibling tools like edb_get_current_thread and edb_list_threads.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for changing the active thread and affects later commands, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the description adds context by explaining it modifies registers and mentions use cases. It does not contradict annotations. It also describes the return type as a confirmation string. It could mention side effects like changing execution behavior, but annotations cover the destructive aspect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat verbose; the Args and Returns section is redundant with the schema. It could be condensed to one sentence: 'Modify a CPU register value. Useful for patching execution flow or testing conditions.' The examples could be integrated more efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple output schema (string confirmation), the description is complete enough. It covers the input parameters with examples. However, it does not explicitly state that the modification applies to the target debugged process, which might be assumed but could be clarified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% because description repeats parameter info, but it adds value by providing examples (e.g., 'rax', 'rip') and clarifying the hex format for the value parameter. This helps an agent understand typical usage beyond the schema's generic descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it modifies a CPU register value, with a specific verb 'Modify' and resource 'CPU register'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edb_get_register (read) and edb_dump_registers (read), and from other write tools like edb_set_breakpoint or edb_write_memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides use cases: 'patching execution flow or testing conditions'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough. Among many siblings, this tool's write nature is distinct, so no exclusion criteria are strictly necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds context about equivalence to EDB's action and file-loading benefits. It discloses behavioral traits without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two focused sentences plus structured Args/Returns sections. Every element earns its place, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with annotations and a one-param schema, the description covers purpose, usage hint, param details, and return. It could mention state changes more explicitly but is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite schema description coverage reported as 0%, the tool description manually explains the param ('directory: Working directory path') and return value ('str: Confirmation'), adding value beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a clear verb ('Set') and resource ('working directory for the debugger and debugged process'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like edb_set_environment_variable or edb_set_variable by focusing on directory path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states it is 'useful for programs that need to load files from a specific directory,' implying a use case but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives. It offers moderate guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these by stating 'Display' and 'query various settings'. It adds context about returning a string value and using GDB's `show` command, which is transparent. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with three sentences plus an argument block. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Some redundancy exists (parameter info appears both in text and schema), but it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only), the description is complete. It explains the behavior, parameter, and return value. The output schema exists but is not needed; description suffices. No gaps for the use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists the 'setting' parameter with examples ('architecture', 'follow-fork-mode'), adding meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0% in context signals, but the description compensates fully by providing the parameter's purpose and examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Display current debugger configuration settings' and explains it uses GDB's `show` command. This precisely identifies the verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'edb_configure_debugger' which modifies settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (querying a specific configuration setting) but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses ability to run any GDB command including continue, implying potential state changes, and describes non-stopping logging use. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus structured args/returns, front-loaded with key information, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given tool complexity (breakpoint commands), description explains concept, GDB equivalence, return type, and usage context; annotations and schema complement well.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions; the description adds the GDB equivalence but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets commands to execute when a breakpoint is hit, verb+resource, and distinguishes from siblings like edb_set_breakpoint and edb_execute_gdb_command.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides analogy to GDB's `commands` keyword and notes use case for logging without stopping, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or specify alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-destructive behavior; description adds that it returns a status with stop reason if another breakpoint is hit, which is helpful for understanding continuation behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus return description, no wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters and a simple purpose; the description fully explains its behavior and return value, making it complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with no parameters, so description is not required to add parameter meaning. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Continue execution' and the context 'after a breakpoint or pause'. Resumes from the current instruction pointer, distinguishing it from step or run commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage after a breakpoint or pause, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare to sibling tools like step instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds the category enumeration detail, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words. Highly concise and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, strong annotations, and existence of output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. Categories are specified, and the output schema can detail return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description doesn't need to explain params but adds value by specifying output categories. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'CPU registers by category', specifying concrete categories (GPR, SIMD, FPU, flag). This distinguishes it from siblings like edb_get_register or edb_get_registers which fetch raw values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for exploring register categories, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives mentioned. Sibling tools suggest other register-related operations, but guidance is lacking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals the tool writes to memory (destructive), uses edb_write_memory_bytes internally, and returns a confirmation string. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds implementation context without repeating annotations, providing additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose, examples, internal note, and explicit parameter listing. It is concise but includes an 'Args' section that somewhat repeats the schema. One sentence could be trimmed, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, usage, parameters, internal behavior, and return value. With annotations providing destructive hint and an output schema (implied by context), the description is sufficiently self-contained for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite the schema having 0% description coverage (according to context), the tool description explicitly lists each parameter with examples (e.g., '0x400000', '0x90') and clarifies the expected format. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which only has basic types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fills a memory region with a repeating byte value, providing specific use cases (zeroing buffers, filling with NOPs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like edb_write_memory and edb_write_memory_bytes by highlighting it uses the latter internally and is designed for repetitive patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives concrete examples of when to use the tool (zeroing, NOPs) and mentions it uses edb_write_memory_bytes, implying a preferred use case for repetitive fills. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives, such as direct memory writes for non-repetitive updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns a string. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two succinct sentences plus a return type line, front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, full annotations, and existing output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. Complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist; the description is superfluous but correctly puts baseline at 4. It adds no param info because none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'get the instruction at the current program counter' with a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tools like edb_disassemble or edb_get_register by focusing on the instruction at RIP/EIP.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Indicates when to use ('Shows what will execute next'), providing clear context. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions, but the purpose is self-contained for a simple getter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by specifying that it shows 'individual flag states'. No contradictions are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without any extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient information about the tool's functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it shows the EFLAGS/RFLAGS CPU status register with individual flag states, which is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like edb_dump_registers or edb_get_register.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. The context implies it is for inspecting CPU flags, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('current function scope') and that it returns names and values, which is beyond annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Efficiently communicates purpose and output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and with annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently explains the output (names and values) and scope. No obvious gaps given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score is 4 as the description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves all local variables in the current function scope, showing names and values. This is specific and distinct from siblings like edb_get_registers or edb_get_arguments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edb_get_variable or edb_get_arguments. Context is implied by the scope but lacks direct differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe read operation. Description adds that it returns a JSON status object and lists fields, providing some behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two brief sentences plus a Returns line. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence is informative with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, existing annotations, and the presence of an output schema (context indicates has output schema true), the description sufficiently explains return value format and content.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters to describe. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to compensate. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the current debugger and process status' and lists specific fields retrieved (loaded, running, paused, PID, RIP, current instruction, register count). It distinguishes from similar tools like edb_get_registers or edb_get_backtrace by focusing on overall status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edb_dump_state, edb_get_registers). The description implies it's for basic status, but doesn't contrast or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it checks GDB's program state and thread status, providing behavioral context beyond annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with no superfluous words, front-loading the purpose and including return type. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and sufficient annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. The mention of equivalence to EDB's status bar provides a mental model for the user.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details, meeting the baseline score for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool determines why the process stopped, listing examples like breakpoint, signal, step. It distinguishes itself by mentioning it is equivalent to EDB's status bar, leaving no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to avoid it. While the purpose is clear, the description does not provide context about when it is appropriate compared to other tools, such as edb_get_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Disclosures include setting instruction pointer and equivalence to a UI action. Adds context beyond annotations (destructiveHint) by explaining the effect. Could clarify if execution resumes after jump.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences plus Args/Returns, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Single parameter with clear description, simple return type. Output schema present. Description covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and return. Fully complete for this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter description in schema already provides examples. Description repeats 'Target' and examples, adding minimal value over schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage is effectively 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool jumps to a specific address and sets the instruction pointer. It provides equivalent UI action and distinguishes from stepping/continuing siblings via 'skip code or continue from a specific location'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states use cases: 'skip code or continue from a specific location'. Does not explicitly describe when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools like edb_step_instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond specifying the output format (returns str). No additional traits like side effects or permissions are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no unnecessary words, and states the core functionality and return format upfront.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description fully conveys what the tool does and what it returns, requiring no additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description is sufficient for this parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists all saved bookmarks with names and addresses, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like edb_add_bookmark and edb_remove_bookmark.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, the simplicity and clarity of the tool make its usage obvious. It is a read-only listing tool, contrasting with add/remove siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns a string list and is equivalent to GDB's info sources, which provides some additional context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short sentences plus a return type note, every part adds value, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the purpose, equivalent command, and return type, making it complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%). With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('source files used by the debugged program'), and provides a direct GDB equivalent ('info sources'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like edb_list_source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the tool lists all source files, indicating when to use it. It does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns a string listing with IDs, names, and states, providing context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a returns section. Every sentence adds value without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (IDs, names, states) and is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the description naturally covers parameter semantics. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all threads with IDs, names, and states. It uses the specific verb 'list' and the resource 'threads', distinguishing it from siblings like edb_get_current_thread.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edb_get_current_thread). While the context is simple, implicit usage is not sufficient for a higher score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds specifics: supported data types, count limits, return type. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured: summary, use cases, parameter documentation, return info. Every sentence adds value. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive for a typed memory read tool: covers supported types, use cases, parameters. Output schema exists. Complete information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description's Args section largely duplicates schema info. Schema already has descriptions and constraints (e.g., count max 256). Adds little beyond schema, so baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action: read memory at an address interpreted as a data type. Lists supported types and uses like struct inspection and pointer chasing, distinguishing from raw memory reads (sibling edb_read_memory).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage context ('Essential for struct inspection, pointer chasing, and data analysis'), but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like edb_read_memory. Clear context but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes redirection of stdin/stdout/stderr, adding behavioral detail beyond annotations (idempotent, destructive, openWorld). Annotations already give hints, description confirms effect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear Args/Returns sections, minimal sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, covers all needed info: what it does, parameter, return type. Output schema exists but description adds value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Includes Args section detailing the 'params' object and 'tty_path' with example ('/dev/pts/0'), adding meaning beyond schema (which only has title and description).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Set the terminal device for the debugged program's I/O.' Specific verb and resource, distinct from siblings which focus on breakpoints, memory, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions equivalence to EDB's TTY configuration, implying usage context. No explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but no conflicting tools exist among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Disclosure of RSP modification and value return adds context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true). No contradictions. Good, but could mention side effects like stack corruption if misused.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences plus a return-value line. No fluff, front-loads purpose. Every sentence is informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema (present), the description fully explains the operation and return. No gaps in understanding for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description appropriately omits parameter details. No extra semantics needed, but no additional value added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool pops a value from the program stack, reads value, increments RSP, and returns the popped value. It also references the equivalent menu action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like edb_stack_push and edb_stack_modify.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edb_stack_push or edb_stack_modify. Usage is implied by the description of the operation, but lacks proactive when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds specificity about the content (status, frames, collected data), which is consistent and provides additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action. No unnecessary words; every part contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema (assumed), the description adequately explains what the tool does. For a simple read-only display tool in a debugging context, this is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate for no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows execution trace status, frames, and collected data. The verb 'Show' is specific and the resource is clearly defined, distinguishing it from siblings like edb_trace_start and edb_trace_stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives provided. However, it is implied that this tool is for inspecting trace data after starting a trace, and given zero parameters, usage is straightforward. Guidance could mention prerequisites like trace must be active.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it shows disassembly, hex dump, register references, and code references, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a brief summary followed by details on argument and return value. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information, and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary aspects: action, what is shown, parameter format, and return type. No missing information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('address') with a description that matches the tool's description. Schema description coverage is high for the only parameter, so the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool navigates to and inspects an address across all views, specifying disassembly, hex dump, register references, and code references. It distinguishes itself from siblings like edb_disassemble_range by being a combined view, and explicitly mentions equivalence to EDB's context menu actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains what the tool shows and provides context (equivalent to EDB actions). It does not explicitly state when to use or not use alternatives, but the purpose is clear and the sibling list includes specific tools for specific views, implying use for comprehensive inspection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds that it calls a function in the debugged process, which may change state, and specifies the return value in EAX/RAX. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: a single sentence for purpose, then bullet points for args and returns. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter meaning, and return value. It could add more on side effects or prerequisites (e.g., process must be paused), but is sufficient for most agents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the function_expr parameter with concrete examples ('printf("hello")', 'malloc(100)') and notes the return value. Although the schema already describes the parameter format, the description adds practical usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'call' and resource 'function in the debugged process', with a direct analogy to GDB's `call` command. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edb_evaluate_expression by specifying execution context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit usage scenarios: 'useful for testing functions with specific arguments or calling library functions.' However, it does not include when-not-to-use or compare to alternatives like edb_evaluate_expression.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by specifying which registers are shown (XMM0-15, YMM0-15, ZMM0-31, MXCSR), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, with two sentences covering purpose, equivalent view, register list, and return type. Every sentence is informative and there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description effectively covers what it does, what registers are involved, and that it returns a string. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no param info because none exist, but it is not needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets the SIMD register state and lists the specific registers (XMM0-15, YMM0-15, ZMM0-31, MXCSR). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edb_get_registers and edb_get_fpu_state, which cover general or FPU registers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by mentioning equivalence to EDB's RegisterViewModel SIMD category, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond annotations by specifying the requirement for GDB recording and that it steps the program backward. Annotations show it is not read-only and not destructive, which aligns. Could be improved by noting effect on execution state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: opens with purpose, then prerequisite, then parameter summary. Every sentence adds value. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the key aspects: what it does, prerequisite, and parameter. Sufficient for a reverse debugging step tool. Could mention that it only works when recording is active, but already stated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the 'count' parameter as the number of reverse steps with a default of 1, adding meaning beyond the schema's description. The schema already defines the default, but the text clarifies the purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool steps backward in execution for reverse debugging. The verb 'step' and resource 'program execution' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like edb_step_instruction which step forward.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly mentions the prerequisite of GDB recording being active, which guides when to use. However, it does not directly compare with siblings like edb_reverse_continue or explain when to step vs continue backward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that setting count=0 means 'don't skip' and notes equivalence to GDB's ignore command. It does not contradict annotations and provides sufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear main sentence, an analogy, a use case, and a structured parameter list. Every part adds value; no redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers core functionality, usage, and parameters. It lacks explicit mention that the tool modifies an existing breakpoint, but the idempotent hint and context make this clear. Overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies the parameters (number and count) beyond the schema, especially explaining count=0 semantics. The schema already has descriptions, but the tool description adds meaningful context like 'Skip count (0 = don't skip)' and the GDB analogy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Set the number of times a breakpoint should be ignored before stopping.' It names the resource (breakpoint ignore count) and differentiates from sibling tools like edb_set_breakpoint or edb_set_breakpoint_condition by specifying the ignore count functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a concrete use case: 'Useful for skipping a breakpoint N times (e.g., in a loop) before breaking.' While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use or list alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructive and mutable behavior (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds context about query mode when action is empty, enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words, earning a top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (one nested parameter, output schema), the description covers the main behaviors and parameter details. However, it could be more complete by explaining the effects of each action or providing additional usage hints, but output schema compensates for return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes parameters signal and action with valid values. The description adds beyond schema by explaining the effect of an empty action (query mode) and lists all action options, providing extra semantic value despite schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Configure' and resource 'signal handling' for GDB/EDB. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying its unique purpose, and includes the query behavior when action is empty, providing specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates usage for configuring signal handling and mentions query mode. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edb_send_signal, missing direct comparison or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds context beyond annotations: it specifies assembly-level instruction stepping and the count parameter. Annotations already mark it as not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent; the description confirms its mutating effect on execution state. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences plus structured Args/Returns. Front-loaded with core purpose, no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Cover the main behavior, parameter, and return value. Output schema exists to detail return structure. Lacks explicit mention of side effects on program state, but that's fundamental to stepping tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 defines the 'count' parameter with type, default, and description, which fully covers the single parameter. The schema itself also had a description for count, but given 0% coverage signal, the description is essential and well-provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it steps a single CPU instruction, not a source line, and explicitly differentiates from edb_step_into which steps by source line. It also notes equivalence to EDB's action_Single_Step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use: for assembly-level stepping, and names the alternative (edb_step_into) for source line stepping. Does not cover all sibling stepping tools like edb_step_over or edb_step_out, but the differentiation from the most similar tool is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide minimal behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.). Description adds context: stepping over calls (not into), equivalent to GDB's nexti. No contradictory statements. However, does not mention side effects like modification of execution state, which is appropriate for a stepping command.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise and well-structured: purpose sentence, GDB equivalence, differentiation, then Args/Returns. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists (returns str), so description need not detail return. Adequately explains behavior and differentiation. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., process must be running) but not necessary given typical debugger usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (count). Schema already describes it as 'Number of instructions to step over' with default 1. Description repeats this information and adds structured formatting but no additional meaning. Schema coverage is high, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it steps over a single instruction at assembly level, skipping calls. Specifically compares to GDB's nexti and distinguishes from sibling tools edb_step_over (source line) and edb_step_instruction (step into calls).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly differentiates when to use this tool vs alternatives (edb_step_over, edb_step_instruction) and from GDB's nexti. Provides clear context for stepping over calls at instruction level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds that it returns a string and is equivalent to a specific EDB view, enhancing transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences plus return type, no wasted words. Front-loaded with key info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Fully describes the tool's functionality and output given lack of parameters and presence of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, baseline 4. Nothing to add beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it shows all environment variables for the debugged process, distinguishing itself from set/unset siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implicitly indicates usage when needing to view environment variables, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative guidelines. Still clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by listing specific properties included (PID, binary path, arguments, entry point, register state) and specifying the return type as a string. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise: two sentences plus a return type annotation. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides essential details without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and an output schema (though simple), the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and gives example properties. No missing information affects correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters to describe). Per guidelines, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'comprehensive properties of the debugged process', listing specific examples like PID, binary path, and register state. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as the comprehensive overview, contrasting with more specific tools like edb_get_registers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions equivalence to EDB's ProcessProperties plugin, giving context. While it does not explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives, the 'comprehensive' nature implies it is the go-to for a full process overview. Implicit usage guidance is present, but explicit differentiation from siblings would improve it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds the GDB equivalence and specifies the output contains process list, PIDs, and program, enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences plus a return type line. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description provides enough context: purpose, output content, and a reference to GDB command.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (0 params), so baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not need to add parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get information about all inferiors (processes) being debugged' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by referencing GDB's `info inferiors` command.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use: when needing info about all debugged processes. It does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, not destructive. The description adds specifics on what is listed (EDB plugins, GDB auto-load scripts, pretty-printers), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences: purpose, equivalence, and return type. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool lists and returns, and the annotations cover safety. No additional information is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the calibration, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists all available debugger plugins and capabilities, specifying the types (EDB plugins, GDB auto-load scripts, pretty-printers). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like edb_list_bookmarks, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose (listing plugins) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. The context of sibling tools is implicit, but no direct exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds that the tool returns the type name and is a short form, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, uses bullet for param, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, parameter, and return value. No gaps considering annotations and output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description explains the single parameter `expression` with examples, adding value over the schema's description. Schema coverage signal is 0% but tool description covers the param well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it prints the type of an expression in short form, equivalent to GDB's `whatis`, and distinguishes from sibling `edb_ptype` which shows full definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description explicitly compares to GDB's `whatis` and contrasts with `edb_ptype`, providing clear context for when to use this tool over its sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, stateless operation. The description adds that it handles '\x' escapes, providing extra context on input flexibility. No contradictions; the description and annotations align.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and includes an important detail about escape sequences. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple encoding function with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It explains the core functionality and the special input format, which is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a clear description of the 'data' parameter: 'Raw bytes or hex string to encode (use \\x escapes for non-printable)'. The tool description does not add new information beyond this schema description. Given high schema coverage (the parameter has a description), baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Encode'), resource ('raw bytes'), and output ('hexadecimal string'). It also mentions support for '\x' escapes, which distinguishes it from siblings like pwntools_unhex (which decodes) and pwntools_enc (general encoding). The name pwntools_enhex is also descriptive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the sibling list includes pwntools_unhex for decoding, implying its use for encoding. The context of hex encoding is clear from the name and description, though explicit guidance would improve score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context by explaining the trace point does not stop execution, which goes beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, and the description aligns without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two paragraphs: a purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one nested input parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the functionality, parameter details, and return value. It is complete given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains the location parameter accepts function, address, or file:line, and the log_message parameter supports $reg for register values, and documents the return type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a trace point that prints a message and continues, distinguishing it from other breakpoint types by emphasizing it does not stop execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states it is useful for tracing function calls and variable changes without interrupting program flow, providing clear guidance on when to use it. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the list of valid levels, which is not in the schema. It does not contradict annotations. However, it could mention that this only affects pwntools internal logging, not program output, but overall it is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word is necessary. No redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is complete. It covers all aspects needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists the valid values ('debug, info, warning, error'), which adds essential meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: setting pwntools log verbosity. It lists the valid levels, providing specific verb-resource pairing. No other sibling tool deals with logging, so it is well-distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for controlling log output verbosity. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear and no competing tools exist. An explicit note about scope (only affects pwntools logging) would be beneficial but is not strictly necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds behavioral context by stating the tool is for full function analysis, which implies larger ranges. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for differentiation, one for usage, then param list. Front-loaded and every sentence adds value without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema details in description, it states 'Returns: str: Disassembly listing'. Combined with annotations and clear parameter docs, it provides complete context for an AI agent to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description documents both parameters (start_address and end_address) with hex examples, adding meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0% per context, so description carries the full burden and does so well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool disassembles a memory range from start to end address, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from the sibling edb_disassemble which uses instruction count, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly contrasts with edb_disassemble ('Unlike edb_disassemble...'), guiding the agent to use this tool for exact address ranges instead of instruction count. States it's useful for full function analysis, providing context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![edb-debugger-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/oakkaya/edb-debugger-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/oakkaya/edb-debugger-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![edb-debugger-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/oakkaya/edb-debugger-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/oakkaya/edb-debugger-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/oakkaya/edb-debugger-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server