edb_analyze_heap

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.