disassemble

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

With no annotations, description must disclose behavior. It mentions memory zone dependency and output format, but does not state that it is read-only or non-destructive, nor any side effects or prerequisites beyond active zone.

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?

Two concise sentences. Front-loaded with purpose, then details. No redundant or wasted words. Highly efficient.

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?

Considering no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, output format, and memory zone dependency. It lacks error handling or prerequisites like 'active zone must be set', but overall sufficient for a simple disassembly tool.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds context: 'Defaults to PC', 'Output is address+instruction (no byte column)', and 'Memory zone selected separately' – which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not add significant detail beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 the verb (disassemble) and resource (Z80 code), specifies default address (PC), output format (address+instruction, no byte column), and that memory zone is separate. This differentiates it from siblings like assemble and hexdump.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., code_coverage, hexdump). It implies memory zone must be set separately, but no exclusion or recommendations.

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