pwntools_elf_relocs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, clearly indicating the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds context about the types of relocations shown but does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that delivers the essential purpose without filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention the filtering capability of the type_filter parameter, but the schema covers that. The description adequately sets expectations.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters ('path' and 'type_filter'). The description mentions GOT/PLT and absolute relocations, which relates to filter values, but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is high, so 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 shows ELF relocation entries, specifically mentioning GOT/PLT fixups and absolute relocations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pwntools_elf_got and pwntools_elf_plt which focus on specific relocation types.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for specific relocation types). No context on prerequisites or when it is appropriate.

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