produce_asm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully explain behavior. It vaguely states 'clean assembly listing' but doesn't disclose what 'clean' means (e.g., stripped addresses, formatting, or safety). It doesn't confirm if the tool is read-only or whether it affects the database.

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 a single sentence with no fluff. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 one parameter but no guidance on usage, parameter value, or behavioral context, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists, its presence doesn't compensate for missing input and usage details. The description fails to fully equip an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 and the description does not clarify what it expects (function name, address, index?). The agent cannot infer what value to pass.

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 uses a specific verb 'Produce' with a clear resource 'clean assembly listing for a function', distinguishing it from sibling tools like disassemble_function (raw disassembly) and decompile_function (C-like output). The mention of 'suitable for copy-paste or file export' adds context.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. With many sibling disassembly tools (disassemble_function, disassemble_range), the agent needs direction on which to choose, but none is provided. The description only implies use for a function, not for ranges or raw disassembly.

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