nds_disassemble_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the window is 'bounded' and requires a 'uniquely mapped code source,' which is useful, but it omits side effects, output format, or any safety/readonly indication. The description lacks detail on what happens with incomplete instructions or how the bound limits apply.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise and to the point, but the brevity leaves out critical details, making it slightly under-specified for such a parameter-rich tool.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain how to specify the range, what the output looks like, or how this tool fits into a workflow. The lack of anything beyond a high-level purpose makes this minimally useful for correct invocation.

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 description adds minimal parameter context via phrases like 'ARM/Thumb' (mode), 'bounded' (maxBytes/maxInstructions), and 'code source' (rom/overlayId), but schema description coverage is 0% and none of the 8 parameters are explicitly explained. It fails to clarify required parameters rom and processor or the difference between romOffset and runtimeAddress.

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 decodes a bounded ARM/Thumb instruction window from a Nintendo DS code source, using the specific verb 'Decode' and naming the resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling analysis tools like nds_analyze_function or nds_discover_functions, so it loses some distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools are given, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the name and terse description.

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