Disassemble PPC instructions around a specific emulated memory address to inspect PowerPC assembly code during Dolphin emulator debugging.
Disassemble PPC instructions around an emulated address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| byteOffset | No | ||
| instructionCount | No | ||
| instructionOffset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but states only what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions or session state are required, what the return format looks like, or how timeoutMs affects behavior. For a tool that likely queries live emulator state, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized but does not compensate for the lack of detail elsewhere, though conciseness itself is good.
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?
Given five parameters and zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should explain the address format, offset semantics, and what disassembly output to expect. The complete absence of behavioral and parameter context leaves the agent unable to invoke this tool correctly without trial and error.
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%, so the description must compensate for five parameters, but it adds no parameter information beyond the required 'address'. Parameters like byteOffset, instructionOffset, instructionCount, and timeoutMs have no explanation of their meaning or expected format. The description fails to convey whether address is hexadecimal, symbolic, or what units the offsets use.
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?
The description states a specific verb (Disassemble) and resource (PPC instructions), which is clearer than the bare tool name. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling dolphin_code or clarify what 'emulated address' means in the context of Dolphin emulation. The purpose is understandable but lacking in precision regarding scope and differentiation.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dolphin_code or dolphin_memory. The description offers no context about whether this requires an active debug session, whether the address must be in a specific memory space, or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.