decompile_function_by_address

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails: it discloses the return format (C pseudocode), but says nothing about prerequisites (must the binary be loaded/analyzed?), behavior when the address is not inside any function, failure modes for invalid addresses, or cost of decompilation.

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 that states action, target, and result with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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-value explanation is not required, and the one-parameter surface is small. Still missing usage routing and any behavioral caveats (invalid address, unanalyzed binary), leaving the definition only minimally complete for a decompiler call.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by clarifying that the address may point either at the function entry or merely inside it, but it gives no format hints (hex string, absolute vs relative) for the required address value.

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?

Names a specific verb (Decompile) and resource (function at or containing an address), and the qualifier 'at or containing' distinguishes it from a by-name variant. It does not explicitly name the sibling decompile_function, so an agent must infer the address-vs-name distinction from the tool name itself.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never mentions the alternatives decompile_function, disassemble_function, or get_function_by_address. The agent must decide between them without help.

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