disassemble

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively. It discloses the count cap, the return structure (list of dicts with addr, info, text), and the meaning of the info tag (beebjit's per-line tag). This goes beyond basic operational details.

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 and well-structured, with three sentences that deliver the essential information. It front-loads the primary action and then provides return format and usage nuance without unnecessary 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?

For a tool of moderate complexity, the description is complete: it covers the operation, the return format, the count cap, and a looping strategy. An output schema is present, and the description complements it by explaining the semantics of the returned fields.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the semantics of `addr` (starting address) and `count` (number of instructions, capped at 20). `session_id` is not explained but is likely a common parameter across siblings, so the description compensates reasonably for the most critical parameters.

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 6502 instructions starting at a given address, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_memory by focusing on instruction disassembly rather than raw memory access.

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 explains the count cap and provides explicit guidance on how to loop for longer disassemblies by advancing to the address past the last instruction. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the context is clear and practical.

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