disassemble

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful default: omitting `start` uses the current PC. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output it returns, or how session_id affects execution.

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 tightly worded sentence with code-span parameters; no filler. The essential default for `start` is included up front and every phrase contributes to call semantics.

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 debugger action, the description is mostly adequate: start types, count, and default PC are covered. But with no output schema and no annotations, it should also clarify session_id handling and expected output; those gaps keep it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for `start` (accepted value types and default) and `count` (number of instructions), but it never mentions `session_id`, leaving one of the three parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific verb ('Disassemble') with a clear resource: `count` instructions at `start`. It also defines accepted forms for `start` (address, gdb expression, function name, current PC), which makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from memory/register/backtrace inspection siblings.

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 given about when to choose disassemble instead of read_memory, evaluate, get_backtrace, or other inspection tools, nor any mention of preconditions such as an active GDB session. The only implicit usage pointer is the word 'Disassemble'.

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