get_symbol_address

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the dependency on 'load_elf()' but does not address error cases (e.g., symbol not found, ELF not loaded) or side effects. The return is described but without error handling or success/failure conditions.

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 and well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and usage without extraneous information. The front-loading of the main sentence is good.

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 simplicity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description is adequate. It covers prerequisite, parameter, and return value. However, it lacks information on error handling or behavior when the symbol doesn't exist, which would be expected for a query tool.

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 provides only a 'symbol' string parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the symbol can be a function or global variable name, and provides examples like 'main' and 'SystemCoreClock', adding meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 that the tool queries the memory address of a symbol (function or global variable). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_functions' (which only returns names) and 'read_variable' (which reads the value). The prerequisite mention of 'load_elf()' adds context, though it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 an explicit prerequisite ('need to call load_elf() first'), which serves as a usage guideline. However, it lacks details on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like 'read_variable' or 'list_functions' for address retrieval.

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