load_elf

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior: it mentions enabling symbol resolution and return data (symbol count, variable count, DWARF info). However, it does not disclose failure scenarios, whether it clears previous symbols, or any side effects like memory usage.

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?

Description is well-structured with Args/Returns sections and examples, but is slightly lengthy. Every sentence adds value, though some detail could be condensed.

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 role as a loader for symbol resolution, the description sufficiently covers purpose and usage. The output schema is referenced, and sibling tools contextualize its importance. Could mention prerequisites like connection status, but overall complete.

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 sole parameter elf_path has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds file extensions (.elf/.axf), clarifies it requires the full path, and provides concrete path examples, adding significant meaning 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 the tool loads ELF/AXF files for symbol name resolution, enabling variable and function name usage. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a prerequisite for symbol-dependent operations like read_variable and set_breakpoint.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use the tool (before variable/function symbol resolution) and includes typical path examples. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply its foundational role.

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