disassemble_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool gets assembly code but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles invalid addresses, if it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits. The API compatibility note adds some context but doesn't address core behavioral transparency needed for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get assembly code for a function') and adds a relevant contextual note. There's no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool has one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what the tool does and adds API context. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like safety or error handling to fully compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'start_address' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as address format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get assembly code for a function' specifies the verb (get) and resource (assembly code for a function). It distinguishes from siblings like 'decompile_function' by focusing on assembly rather than decompiled code, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other disassembly-related tools. The API compatibility note adds context but doesn't affect core purpose clarity.

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 usage by mentioning API compatibility with older IDA builds, suggesting it's for disassembly tasks in that context. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'decompile_function' or 'patch_address_assembles', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks specific comparative guidance.

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