disassemble

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the output format at a high level ('returning assembly with opcodes and metadata'), but it does not explain what happens if both address and function_name are supplied, if neither is supplied, or if the target is invalid. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then states the return value. Every word earns its place.

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 moderate complexity of disassembly, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview but omits key operational details: how address mode and function mode interact, the role of count, and what 'metadata' includes. An agent could call it correctly in common cases but might mis-handle edge cases.

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 parameter meanings are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'address or function' and adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 clear verb ('Disassemble'), a specific resource ('instructions at the given address or function'), and the output ('assembly with opcodes and metadata'). It is distinguishable from siblings like decompile_function and disassemble_bytes, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implies two modes (address-based and function-based) but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the closely related disassemble_bytes, which likely handles raw bytes. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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