procedure_pseudo_code

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which is counterintuitive for a decompile operation, and the description says nothing about what is written or why. It also omits latency/cost expectations for decompilation and does not explain the interaction with analysis_project_id beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the disambiguation rule. Nothing to trim.

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, the description should at least characterize the returned pseudo-code (text blob, per-function scope) and cover the undocumented `document` parameter. It is adequate to invoke correctly but leaves meaningful unknowns.

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 33%, and the description compensates partially by revealing that `procedure` accepts an entry address (not just a name). The `document` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so the gap is only half-closed.

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 ("Decompile one ELF function") plus the output form ("Ghidra C-like pseudo-code"), which implicitly separates it from procedure_assembly and read_function_instructions. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Gives one concrete conditional rule: use an entry address from list_procedures when a name is ambiguous between a function body and a thunk. That is real routing guidance, but there is no guidance on when to prefer decompilation over procedure_assembly, procedure_info, or analyze_function.

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