Disassemble a function's body to view each instruction's address, raw bytes, assembly, and end-of-line comments. Use it to inspect low-level code during Ghidra-based reverse engineering.
Disassemble the instructions in a function's body (address, bytes, instruction, end-of-line comment).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| address | 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, yet it discloses nothing about read-only safety, required permissions, or pagination behavior for limit/offset. The only behavioral hint is the parenthetical output listing, which is largely redundant given an output schema exists.
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 efficiently worded sentence with the resource and output shape front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the parameter gaps.
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 3-param tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin: it omits the pagination parameters, usage context, and alternatives. The output schema covers return values, but the invocation side is under-specified.
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 0% and the description only implicitly clarifies that 'address' is a function address ('a function's body'). The limit and offset parameters are completely unexplained, leaving pagination semantics ambiguous.
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: disassembling a function's body, and enumerates the output columns (address, bytes, instruction, comment). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling decompile_* tools.
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 use this versus decompile_function, decompile_function_by_address, or read_memory. The agent must infer that this is the low-level instruction view while the decompile siblings are the high-level view.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.