debug_disassemble

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuine behavior beyond the schema — the default address is the live program counter and `bits` overrides the x86 decode mode with 16/32/64 — but it never says whether disassembly is a read-only non-mutating operation, whether the target must be paused or connected, or whether it changes the current pc.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the `bits` nuance second. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence's phrasing ('bits overrides the decode mode on x86 ... useful in bootloader code') is slightly indirect rather than crisply stated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the distinctive decode-mode behavior well. Still missing for a debugger tool are the required session/target binding implied by `name` and any statement of the execution state required to disassemble at the current pc.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain `count` (number of instructions), `address` (defaults to current pc), and `bits` (decode mode 16/32/64 on x86), but the required `name` parameter is never described at all, leaving a significant hole in a four-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Disassemble `count` instructions from address', which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling capabilities like debug_memory or debug_registers. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives useful invocation context: address defaults to the current pc, and `bits` is for bootloader code running before the CPU mode matches the ELF. That is a real usage hint, but there is no statement of when to choose this over debug_memory or debug_explain_fault, and no prerequisite guidance (e.g., an attached/paused session).

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