windbg_disassemble_back

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly mentions the underlying cdb 'ub' command, which is a helpful behavioral detail. It also implicitly conveys a read-only nature with no side effects. No contradictions or safety concerns are left unaddressed for this simple disassembly operation.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a brief rationale. No wasted words.

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 tool with fully documented parameters, the description is sufficient. It explains what, why, and mentions the underlying command. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the tool's purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer what to expect.

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%: count and address are both described. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing the 'before' direction, which is already inherent in the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Disassemble N instructions BEFORE an address.' It clearly distinguishes from the likely forward-disassembly sibling (windbg_disassemble) by emphasizing the backward direction and the usefulness for seeing what led to the current IP.

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 phrase 'Useful for seeing what led to the current IP' provides a clear use case, implying when to choose this over forward disassembly or other inspection tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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