pwntools_elf_got

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., prerequisites, error handling, or output details). Given the annotation coverage, a baseline score of 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?

A single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It directly conveys the tool's action and subject.

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 (one parameter, read-only) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could mention what information constitutes a GOT entry (e.g., function addresses, offsets) to improve completeness. Currently adequate but not excellent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, placing the burden on the description. The description does not elaborate on the 'params' object or the 'path' property (e.g., format, required traits). The single parameter is implicitly explained by the tool's purpose, but explicit guidance is missing.

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 ('Parse') and the resource ('Global Offset Table entries from an ELF binary'). It uses a specific verb and noun, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pwntools_elf_plt or pwntools_elf_symbols.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many ELF-parsing siblings (elf_plt, elf_symbols, elf_sections, etc.), there is no contextual hint or explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use advice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.