decompile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses return fields (addr, code) and the failure mode (error), which goes beyond a bare decompile claim. However it says nothing about permissions, cost, or whether it is a safe read-only operation, leaving gaps given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, followed by input and output expectations. No filler, though the terseness leaves little room for context.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully states the return shape (addr, code) and error behavior, and the schema richly documents the instance_id routing requirement including a pointer to instance_list. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though usage-vs-sibling context is absent.

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 100%, so all three parameters (addr, instance_id, include_addresses) are already fully documented in the schema, including accepted address formats. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('反编译函数为伪代码', decompile a function to C-style pseudocode) and names the output format, which distinguishes it from the assembly-producing sibling disasm. It does not name siblings directly, but the C-style pseudocode deliverable gives an agent enough to tell it apart.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer decompile over disasm or analyze_function, and no preconditions stated. The accepted input forms (address or symbol) are given, but that is input format, not usage guidance.

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