get_opcode_documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful caveat ('Assembly differences are not performance measurements') but includes a confusing statement about compilation tools that does not apply to this tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the second and third sentences are extraneous and appear misplaced ('Compilation tools transmit...' and 'Assembly differences...'). This bloated structure harms clarity.

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 simple lookup tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the first sentence provides the core functionality. However, the irrelevant sentences reduce completeness and may mislead the agent, leaving gaps around what 'bounded' means and how to interpret results.

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. It only says 'explicit instruction-set and opcode IDs' without explaining valid value formats or examples. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema parameter names.

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 clearly states the action ('Look up'), the resource ('opcode documentation'), and the required inputs ('explicit instruction-set and opcode IDs'). This is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_compilers or compile_cpp.

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 implies usage when opcode documentation is needed with specific IDs, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The second and third sentences are irrelevant to usage context.

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