get_source_listing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool shows source with line numbers and requires a halted target, but lacks details on return format, scope of listing, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, using a single paragraph plus concise Args/Returns sections. Every sentence is informative and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, clear purpose), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the parameter, prerequisite, and return concept. An output schema exists, so return details are not required. A mention of alternative tools would improve completeness.

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 description explains the single parameter 'address' clearly: 'Address or symbol. Empty = current PC.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition, making it easy for an agent to use correctly.

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 'Get the source code listing around the current execution point,' specifying the verb and resource. It adds detail about HLL source with line numbers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like disassemble or get_disassembly.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite 'The target must be halted,' giving clear context for usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined enough to infer when to use this tool over others.

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