mips_disassemble

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully names the underlying engine (Capstone) and clarifies that input is raw bytes rather than a file, but says nothing about the return format, how errors on malformed hex are handled, or any length/alignment constraints.

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 the action first and the qualifiers in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what comes back (instruction listing with addresses?) and any input constraints such as hex length being a multiple of the instruction width. It is adequate for identifying the tool but leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description goes further by mapping architecture values to platforms and endianness (R4300i→N64 big-endian, R5900→PS2 little-endian), which helps an agent pick coherent arch/endian combinations rather than reading the enums in isolation.

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 and resource — 'Disassemble raw MIPS machine code instructions' — and names the concrete architecture variants it handles. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like mips_analyze_function or decompile_function by operating on raw hex rather than a binary/function, but it never explicitly draws that line.

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 parenthetical 'R4300i for N64 big-endian or R5900 for PS2 little-endian' gives an implied selection rule for the arch/endian parameters, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus mips_analyze_function, mips_reconstruct_function, or decompile_function.

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