disassemble

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds default values ($pc, N) that are already in the schema, but no behavioral context beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It states the action, count, and default location efficiently, though it could benefit from marginally more structure to aid selection among siblings.

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 simple read-only tool whose annotations cover safety and whose schema is fully described, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any usage context or differentiation from many similar debug siblings, leaving selection ambiguous.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description repeats the default location ($pc) and instruction count concept, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the explanatory load.

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 ('Disassembles') and resource ('instructions') with scope ('N instructions at a location'). Clear what the tool does, but does not distinguish itself from sibling debug tools like step, read_memory, or read_call_stack.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. The agent is left to infer context from the name alone among many debug-oriented siblings.

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