edb_file_offset_to_va

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.