decompile_native_function

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral value: a latency expectation (<400ms), supported architectures, and the content of the produced pseudocode (branch conditions, string refs, IAT/PLT resolution). However, it never states that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, what permissions or binary access are needed, or what happens on failure or unsupported input.

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 zero filler. The headline capability and the performance guarantee are front-loaded, followed by concrete output characteristics.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully substitutes for one by enumerating what the pseudocode contains (branch conditions, string references, resolved IAT/PLT stubs). Remaining gaps are how the architecture is detected and how failures are surfaced, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.

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, function_address, and max_instructions are already documented. The description adds nothing per-parameter, such as how function_address interacts with architecture selection or what happens if it is omitted.

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 specific verb and resource: lifts x86/x64/ARM assembly into C pseudocode. It is clearly a decompiler, but it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling decompile_entire_program, so the function-vs-program scope distinction must be inferred from the tool name.

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 indication of when to use this versus decompile_entire_program, decompile_apk_package/decompile_ios_ipa_package, or inspect_binary_layout. No prerequisites, no exclusion cases, no routing guidance of any kind.

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