disassemble_file_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses auto-detection of architecture, default section .text, max_instructions behavior, and that return includes file metadata. However, it omits potential error conditions or permission requirements.

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 concise, with a one-line purpose, bulleted Args, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or missing content. Front-loaded with the core action.

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's complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format adequately. It lacks error handling or prerequisite conditions but is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, and the description fully explains each parameter: file_path (absolute path), section_name (default .text), arch (auto-detected), max_instructions (default 200, unlimited if 0). This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 the tool disassembles a named section from binary files (PE/ELF/Mach-O). This specific verb-resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools like disassemble_at_address or disassemble_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies its use for named sections but does not contrast with other disassembly tools (e.g., disassemble_at_address, disassemble_entrypoint).

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