ppsspp_disassemble

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

The description states READ-ONLY, notes that it calls memory.disasm via WebSocket, and explicitly guarantees no modification to memory or CPU state. Annotations already carry readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints, so this adds implementation-level context and a state-safety guarantee rather than merely repeating structured data. No contradiction with annotations.

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) front-load the most important facts and keep every sentence purposeful. The description is compact, scannable, and free of filler or unnecessary repetition of the full schema.

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?

The description covers the call's purpose, parameter requirements, behavioral safety, and return shape in a few lines. Since an output schema is present and annotations already cover safety, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing; the only mild omission is explicit tool-alternative guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters already described in the input schema. The description restates requiredness and defaults for address, count, and session_id, but it does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the high-coverage baseline 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 specific action and resource: 'Disassemble N MIPS instructions at a given address.' It clearly states the operation, the target, and the count parameter, which distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like ppsspp_assemble and search-oriented tools like ppsspp_search_disasm.

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 USAGE section gives practical parameter guidance: address is required, session_id is optional only when one session is active, and count has a default. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the purpose and parameter conditions make the intended call context clear, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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