patch_asm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The one-line description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the patch is permanent, what happens on error, or any security implications. The agent is left to guess the tool's side effects.

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 short and to the point, avoiding fluff. However, it lacks structure and important details that could be included without significant verbosity, making it more under-specified than concise.

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 moderate complexity (patching assembly), the description is insufficient. It does not mention the requirement of a target instance, the mutability of the operation, or any constraints. The existence of an output schema partially mitigates the need for return value description, but the overall context is lacking.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The schema already contains descriptions for 'addr' and 'asm', but the 'items' parameter's structure is complex and the tool description does not clarify it further.

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 states the verb 'Patch' and the resource 'assembly instructions at addresses', making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'patch' which may have overlapping functionality, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'patch' or other patching methods. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations.

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