Linear Disasm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope trait (works from arbitrary addresses, not confined to functions), which is useful context, but says nothing about return format, how output is delimited, error behavior, or the effect of timeout — gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 zero filler; the scope constraint is stated compactly and nothing is redundant.

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 simple read-only disassembly tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally serviceable, but it omits any hint of output shape (instruction listing), pagination via count, or timeout semantics, leaving an agent to infer behavior the annotations do not supply.

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 all four parameters (start_address, count, timeout, instance_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'arbitrary address', so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource (linear disassemble) and clarifies scope with 'from arbitrary address (not limited to functions)', which meaningfully distinguishes it from the function-scoped disasm/decompile siblings. It does not name the sibling it is contrasted with, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 parenthetical 'not limited to functions' implies when this tool is preferred over function-scoped disassembly, but it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-to-use/when-not condition. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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