dbg_disassemble

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'disassemble around a memory reference,' lacking any disclosure of side effects, safety, or prerequisites. Agent cannot assess if this is a read-only operation or if it requires a live debug session.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. However, it is excessively terse for a debugging tool requiring parameter details, making it less useful than it could be.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. Agent lacks essential context about return format, safety, and parameter semantics, making correct invocation unlikely.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'memory reference' but does not explain the 'session_id' parameter or the meaning and allowed values of 'instruction_count.' Default value is given but no context on its significance.

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 a specific action (disassemble) on a resource (memory reference), which is distinct from sibling tools like dbg_read_memory or dbg_evaluate. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related concepts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. Agent is left to infer from the name and description alone.

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