edb_view_at_address

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.