Disassemble a single function from the active ELF analysis to inspect native code and support reverse engineering. Provide the procedure name and optional analysis project to retain results.
Disassemble one function in the active ELF analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | No | ||
| procedure | Yes | ||
| analysis_project_id | No | Optional investigation to retain this tool result in. Does not prove target identity or causal relationships. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that the operation targets the 'active' analysis session, hinting at a prerequisite binary context, but does not explain why readOnlyHint=false for what sounds like a pure query, nor what happens if no session is active.
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. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.
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?
With no output schema, an ambiguous name ('procedure_assembly' vs. 'disassemble'), 33% schema coverage, and no mention of the open-session prerequisite, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer for a 3-parameter tool with a crowded sibling set.
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 only 33% — only analysis_project_id is documented. The description's phrase 'one function' loosely maps to the required `procedure` parameter, but neither `procedure` (name? address? ID?) nor the `document` parameter is clarified, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource: 'Disassemble one function in the active ELF analysis.' An agent knows it produces disassembly for a single procedure. However, it does not distinguish this from near-siblings like procedure_pseudo_code, read_function_instructions, or procedure_info, which all operate on the same object.
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?
No guidance on when to choose disassembly over pseudo-code, instruction reading, or function analysis. The only clue is 'active ELF analysis', which implies a prior open_binary/binary_session, but this is never stated as a prerequisite or as a condition for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.