decompile_function

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it flags READ-ONLY, warns of multi-minute latency, and states the output format. It omits preconditions such as whether the binary must be loaded/analyzed first, so there is a remaining gap but the core behavioral profile is present.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose, argument form, safety note, and latency caveat in three short clauses. Slightly dense with parenthetical asides, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the important callable details (exactly one target, argument forms, read-only, runtime). The only real omission is the undefined 'path' parameter and any load prerequisite.

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 this well for 'function' by explaining accepted forms ('main', 'check_license', '0x401160'), but 'path' is left completely undefined in both schema and description. Partial compensation justifies the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Dekompiliert GENAU EINE Funktion'), names the underlying mechanism (Ghidra-headless) and the output form (C-Text + Signatur). The 'GENAU EINE' scope explicitly distinguishes it from bulk siblings like analyze_binary or analyze_apk.

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?

It clarifies the cardinality constraint ('exactly one function') and how to identify the target (name or 0x entry address), which is genuine routing guidance. However, it never states when to reach for this versus list_symbols or analyze_binary, nor any prerequisite (e.g. needing symbols first). Usage is only implied.

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