decompile_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions using the Hex-Rays decompiler and returning C-like pseudocode, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., failure on non-decompilable functions, performance impact, or permissions needed). Basic transparency but lacking depth.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words. Every line adds value: action, tool used, input format, example, output. Highly efficient.

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 (one param, clear output) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention potential error conditions (e.g., function not found) or prerequisites (e.g., function must be defined), but the current level is sufficient for most use cases.

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 single parameter 'identifier' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds significant value: it specifies the format ('function name or hex address'), provides examples ('0x401000' or 'main'), and clarifies how to pass the input. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 ('Decompile'), the resource ('a function'), and the output ('C-like pseudocode'). It distinguishes from siblings like disassemble_function (assembly) and get_function_info (metadata) by specifying the decompiler and output type.

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 implies usage when C-like pseudocode is needed, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like disassemble_function or get_function_info. No exclusions or contexts are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the output type.

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