Converts a single method from a game assembly into C# source code, resolving overloads by assembly key, full type name, method name, and optional parameter count.
Decompile a single method to C# source code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assembly | Yes | Assembly key | |
| type_name | Yes | Full type name | |
| method_name | Yes | Method name | |
| parameter_count | No | Parameter count to disambiguate overloads |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only mentions the output format (C# source). It does not disclose whether the assembly must already be loaded, whether the operation is read-only, or any other behavioral traits like permissions or 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple decompilation tool.
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?
The description covers the return value (C# source code) and the tool's core action. However, it omits contextual prerequisites, most notably that an assembly must be loaded before use, which is important for an agent to call it correctly.
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 already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Decompile') and resource ('a single method') with the output format ('C# source code'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like decompile_type (whole type) and get_method_il (IL). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., decompile_type, get_method_il, inspect_type) or any prerequisites such as loading an assembly first. The description only states the purpose without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.