disassemble_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses read-only behavior on the binary, the conditional Model writeback, and clarifies 'Pure read-only when no DB is supplied.' It does not cover error/edge behavior (out-of-range RVA, clamping details beyond the schema), so it stops short of fully transparent.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the read/write consequence, then the conditional side effect. Mostly efficient, though the final 'Pure read-only' sentence slightly restates the earlier 'read-only on the binary'.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return value ('instruction listing') and the side-effect contract adequately. It leaves error handling and behavior when the RVA/section is invalid unspecified, but the essential call-time information is present.

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 schema already documents all five parameters with examples and defaults. The description adds relational context for db_path/game_path (writeback triggers only when the binary is catalogued), but this is largely redundant with the schema's own descriptions of those params. Baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource: disassemble an arbitrary byte range of a native PE (x86-64) starting at an RVA. The 'arbitrary byte range ... starting at an RVA' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling disassemble_function (which targets a named function), so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

It explains the condition under which writeback occurs ('If db_path or game_path is given AND the binary is catalogued'), which is useful context, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over disassemble_function or rva_to_offset. Usage is left implied by the RVA-based framing rather than stated.

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