nds_ghidra_decompile_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Runs read-only with auto-analysis disabled' and 'bounded', which are key behavioral traits. It does not describe error conditions or what defines a 'current' project, but the disclosed traits are substantive and match the tool's likely safety profile.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then adding a concise operational note. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it optimally concise.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to cover return format and failure modes, but it only vaguely describes the output as 'C-like decompiler output'. It clarifies the operational mode and bound, but leaves gaps around expected output structure, potential errors, and how the function is identified (e.g., runtimeAddress).

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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. While 'bounded' hints at maxCharacters and 'canonical' hints at runtimeAddress, there is no explicit mapping or semantic elaboration. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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's action ('Return bounded Ghidra-derived C-like decompiler output') and scope ('for one canonical NDS function'), distinguishing it from siblings like nds_disassemble_range and nds_analyze_function which focus on disassembly or analysis rather than decompiler output. It also specifies the prerequisite 'already-current project', clarifying the 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?

The description provides clear context: it should be used on a project that is already current, and it runs read-only with auto-analysis disabled. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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