disassemble

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the read-only nature implicitly and describes the output format, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or limitations of the call/jump analysis. It provides some value but is not thorough.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core function and immediately states the distinctive output, making it easy to parse.

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, combined with rich schema parameter documentation and an output schema, covers the tool's purpose and return value adequately. It lacks detail on analysis limitations, but for a disassembly tool with an output schema, this is sufficient.

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?

The schema descriptions for both parameters are comprehensive (100% coverage), including the hex prefix warning and count usage guidance. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool disassembles instructions and specifically highlights the auto call/jump analysis, distinguishing it from siblings like ida_disassemble and windbg_disassemble. It also notes the output includes categorized CALL/JMP lists, making its purpose precise.

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 description implies use for disassembly with control-flow analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks guidance on exclusions or when to prefer plain disassemblers, so usage context is only implied.

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