edb_load_symbol_file

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.