disasm

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 does disclose the return shape (addr, asm line list, cursor) and that offset/pagination and total-count options exist, which is useful. It does not state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor describe truncation behavior at the 5000/50000 instruction limits.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and followed by input, output, and paging details. Nothing is padded, though the listing style is terse rather than prose.

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 read-only disassembly tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields and the pagination mechanism, and the schema covers every parameter including instance routing. Only the failure/truncation semantics are unaddressed.

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 five parameters are already documented in the schema (including the instance_id routing note). The description adds only the accepted address/symbol forms and confirms pagination, which largely duplicates the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('反汇编函数为汇编指令' – disassemble a function into assembly instructions) and names the accepted input forms (address or symbol name). An agent can distinguish this from sibling 'decompile' since raw instruction output is clearly implied. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: the raw-instruction framing suggests use when assembly rather than source-level output is needed, and the mention of offset/pagination hints at iterative reads. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as 'decompile'.

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