Decompile function

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds that the result appears in an interactive C view and that the function can be identified by address or name, which is useful but does not address edge behavior such as missing symbols or invalid addresses. Given the read-only annotation, 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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and output are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the identification criteria complete the second sentence efficiently.

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?

For a simple read-only decompile tool with two self-describing optional parameters, the description covers the main usage: decompile one function, see C in an interactive view, and identify the function by name or address. It does not describe failure behavior or state that at least one identifier is required, but that gap is minor given the clarity of the rest of the definition.

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%, with each parameter described and exemplified in the input schema. The description adds the relationship that identification can be done 'by address (hex) or by name,' but it does not clarify whether exactly one must always be provided or what happens if both are supplied. Overall, the description adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Decompile one function to C and show it in an interactive view.' This clearly conveys what the tool does and is easy to distinguish from siblings such as list_functions or call_graph, which target listing or relationships rather than C pseudocode for a single function.

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 when to use the tool (when a single function needs to be decompiled) and says how to identify the function 'by address (hex) or by name,' but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative. The context is clear enough to infer basic usage, but there is no direct routing guidance versus sibling tools.

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