edb_va_to_file_offset

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.