generate_asm

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it returns the generated .ASM but does not specify whether the return value is the file content or path, nor does it mention error handling, side effects, or permissions. The description lacks detail on behavior beyond the basic compilation step.

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: the first clearly states the action and output, the second provides usage contexts. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify the return format, but it only says 'return the generated .ASM'. It does not mention if the assembly is returned as a string, file path, or other. The description is adequate but leaves a clear gap for an agent to understand the exact return value.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful information beyond the schema; it mentions TCC -S in the description but that is not parameter-specific. No additional parameter guidance is provided.

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 it compiles C to a Turbo C assembly listing using TCC -S and returns the .ASM. It specifies the verb 'compile', resource 'C code', and output 'assembly listing', distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze, run, or format code.

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?

It explicitly states it is great for teaching C-to-assembly mapping, inspecting codegen, and optimization study. While it doesn't mention when not to use or explicitly name alternatives, the usage contexts are clear and differentiate from tools like compile_and_run.

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