Decompile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the Hex-Rays dependency, which is genuinely useful availability context, but says nothing about output format, behavior when the address points at data, multiple-address handling, or error behavior for a tool whose whole output is pseudocode.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the Hex-Rays requirement follows immediately. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 is minimal but serviceable for a simple read operation: it names the action, the input, and the plugin prerequisite. It falls short on return-value expectations and failure modes, which the agent must infer.

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 schema already documents addr (address or name, comma-separated), timeout, and instance_id. The description's '(es)' echoes the plural hint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Decompile') and resource ('function(s) at given address(es)'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like disasm or linear_disasm, leaving the pseudocode-vs-assembly distinction implicit.

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 prerequisite 'Requires Hex-Rays' implies a usage condition (the plugin must be present), which is more than nothing. But there is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as disasm, and no exclusions for addresses that are data rather than functions.

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