Decompiles a whole binary into unified, compilable C source, discovering function entry points and generating forward declarations.
Whole-program C decompiler. Discovers function entry points and generates unified, compilable C source files with forward declarations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binary_path | Yes | Absolute path to binary | |
| max_functions | No | Max functions to decompile |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only says the output is "unified, compilable C source files with forward declarations." There is nothing about that being expensive/long-running, how entry-point discovery is done, what happens when decompilation fails on a function, or whether a whole binary (potentially thousands of functions) is processed by default.
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 tight sentences with the core identity front-loaded and the output shape second; no filler, no restating of the title or parameter names.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well to characterize the return artifact (compilable C with forward declarations), but it leaves the operational picture incomplete: no runtime/cost expectations, no failure semantics, and no indication of where the generated files land or how they are returned.
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 binary_path and max_functions are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no guidance on how max_functions interacts with entry-point discovery (e.g. truncation behavior or ordering).
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?
"Whole-program C decompiler" states a specific verb and resource, and "whole-program" plus "discovers function entry points" implicitly distinguishes it from decompile_native_function and the package-level decompilers. It never names a sibling, so the distinction has to be inferred rather than read.
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?
Usage is only implied by the scope word "entire/whole-program"; there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion (e.g. "use decompile_native_function for a single address"), and no mention of prerequisites such as a disassembler backend or supported architectures.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.