make_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool optionally undefines bytes before conversion, which is a key side effect. However, it does not specify whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or affects the database state, leaving gaps in transparency for a mutation-like tool.

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 with two sentences covering the main action and an optional behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the second sentence could be more precise about the 'size' parameter's role, and the brevity sacrifices some necessary detail.

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 has 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is partially complete. The optional undefine behavior is noted, but the description does not explain the return value format (though an output schema exists, it is not inspected) or clarify the address format. The complexity is moderate, but the description could better address the agent's need to understand the conversion process and side effects.

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 for the missing parameter documentation. It only adds context for the 'size' parameter (optional undefine behavior) but provides no meaning for the 'address' parameter beyond the schema's basic type and title. The default value of 0 for size is mentioned but not explained.

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 converts bytes at an address into disassembled code, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'disassemble_function' or 'get_bytes' by focusing on conversion at a single address with optional undefine, but could be more explicit about the contrast.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disassemble_range' or 'disassemble_function'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the address must be in a code segment) or when the optional undefine is necessary, leaving the agent without clear context for selection.

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