disassemble_entrypoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic entrypoint location and auto-detection of architecture, but does not mention error handling, file prerequisites, or side effects. Lacks some behavioral detail for a mutation-free tool.

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 description is highly concise with a clear one-line purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative and no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it omits prerequisites like file existence or permission checks, and does not reference related tools. Still adequate for typical use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section fully explains each parameter's meaning, defaults, and behavior (e.g., arch auto-detection). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Disassemble code at the binary file's entrypoint' using a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like 'disassemble_at_address' and 'disassemble_file_section', it distinguishes itself by mentioning automatic location of the entrypoint.

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 for disassembling the entrypoint automatically but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disassemble_at_address'. No exclusion criteria or alternative names are mentioned.

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