debugger_disassemble

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'bounded,' and does not disclose the important behavior that the underlying generation expires on resume, meaning stale references fail — that context lives only inside the schema's $defs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; it is tight and easy to parse. The brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and a required opaque reference that is generation-bound, the description omits too much for an agent to call it correctly without reading the schema closely.

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 0% for the top-level parameters, so the description should carry the load but doesn't: it never explains offset, count limits, or timeout. 'Bounded sequence' loosely gestures at count and 'opaque memory reference' at reference, leaving session_id, offset and timeout unaddressed.

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 names a concrete verb (read) and resource (a bounded sequence of instructions) plus the anchor point (an opaque memory reference), so an agent knows this is a disassembly read rather than a raw byte read. It stops short of naming the nearest sibling, debugger_read_memory, so the distinction is inferable but not stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over debugger_read_memory or other debugger inspection tools, and no stated precondition that the reference must come from a currently suspended debugger session. The agent must infer both the use case and the prerequisites.

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