Convert a named function into C pseudocode for reverse engineering. If the function name is ambiguous, switch to the address-based alternative.
Decompile a function by name and return C pseudocode. Fails if the name is ambiguous; use decompile_function_by_address in that case.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a failure mode (ambiguous names fail rather than guess), which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about permissions, performance, or read-only nature, though for a decompile operation those are lower-stakes.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the failure/alternative clause. Every sentence earns its place with zero padding.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and how it fails — only the general name-vs-address selection heuristic is missing.
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 single 'name' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, but the description implies its meaning ('decompile a function by name') and its constraint (must be unambiguous). That compensates partially, though it doesn't say whether the name is fully qualified, case-sensitive, or namespace-aware.
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 (decompile), resource (function), input selector (by name) and output format (C pseudocode). It also names the sibling it is not — decompile_function_by_address — so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.
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?
Explicitly covers the when-not case and the alternative: 'Fails if the name is ambiguous; use decompile_function_by_address in that case.' Clear context is given, but it doesn't state the general condition for preferring name-based lookup (e.g. when you already have a symbol) versus address-based lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.