ppsspp_disassemble

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is pre-covered; the description reinforces this and adds genuine context beyond structured fields by naming the underlying mechanism ('Calls memory.disasm via WebSocket'). It also confirms no memory or CPU state is modified, but adds no rate-limit or failure-mode detail.

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?

Four labeled sections (PURPOSE/USAGE/BEHAVIOR/RETURNS) with zero filler; the essential purpose leads and each line carries distinct information. Well front-loaded for fast agent scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so the RETURNS block is a convenience rather than a necessity. Combined with full 100% schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly; the added WebSocket/read-only context closes the remaining gap.

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 100%: the schema already documents count's default, count=0 handling, the 100 cap, the clamp note, address hex format, and session_id auto-resolution. The description only restates defaults and never adds syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Disassemble N MIPS instructions at a given address.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ppsspp_assemble (the inverse) and ppsspp_search_disasm (which searches rather than dumps at a fixed address).

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?

USAGE states parameter requirements ('address required; session_id optional when exactly one session is active; count optional'), which is helpful, but it never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as ppsspp_search_disasm or ppsspp_list_addresses. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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