Disasm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose output shape (hex addresses, plain text without color tags), which is genuinely useful. It omits whether the operation is read-only (strongly implied), how invalid or unresolved addresses are handled, and any timeout/interaction expectations beyond the parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is terse to the point of leaving alternatives unexplained, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

For a read-only query with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately signals what comes back (listing lines). It falls short on routing between disassembly variants and on failure/edge behavior, leaving gaps an agent must resolve by trial or sibling exploration.

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%, so addr, timeout, and instance_id are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'function(s)' only loosely echoes the comma-separated addr semantics and adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline.

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?

Clear specific verb (disassemble) plus resource (function(s)) and an explicit output characterization (listing lines with hex addresses, no color tags). It does not name nearby siblings like linear_disasm or get_bytes, so an agent must infer scope boundaries, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no distinction from linear_disasm or decompile, and no prerequisites such as requiring analysis to be complete. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb.

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