windbg_disassemble

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states default behavior (N instructions at an address, current IP default) and the function mode, but does not mention side effects, output format, or prerequisites. As a read-only disassembly operation, the lack of explicit side effects is acceptable, but more context (e.g., requires an active debuggee) would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds useful information about modes and the underlying cdb command. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 covers the tool's primary modes (count-based and whole-function), the default address, and differentiates from backward disassembly. While it omits output format details, the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this adequately complete for agent use.

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%: all three parameters have descriptions. The description adds minimal information beyond the schema, mostly repeating the 'function=true' behavior and default count. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Disassemble code forward.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling windbg_disassemble_back by indicating direction. It also mentions the function=true mode, adding scope.

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 usage context through the forward direction and the count/function options, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like windbg_disassemble_back or other disassembly tools. It provides behavioral options but no exclusion criteria.

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