decompile_functionConverts a binary function into C pseudocode by function name or entry address, supporting unique substring lookup for reverse-engineering analysis.
反编译函数为 C 伪代码。function 接受函数名（支持唯一子串）或入口地址。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binary | Yes | ||
| function | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether the binary must first finish analysis (the presence of analysis_status suggests an async pipeline), whether the operation is read-only, or what happens on ambiguity — despite claiming unique-substring matching, it never says how non-unique matches are handled.
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 short sentences with zero waste; the core action comes first and the parameter note follows. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.
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-value explanation is not needed. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should at least identify the binary target and explain max_chars truncation behavior; those gaps leave it only minimally viable.
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%, so the description must compensate. It gives genuinely useful semantics for the 'function' parameter (name with unique-substring support, or an entry address), but leaves 'binary' and 'max_chars' (default 20000, presumably a truncation limit on the returned pseudocode) completely unexplained.
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: decompile a function into C pseudocode. This implicitly contrasts with the sibling disassemble_function (assembly), but that contrast is never made explicit, so differentiation is only inferable from the word 'pseudocode'.
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 when-to-use guidance is given and no alternative is named, despite close siblings like disassemble_function, function_info, and analyze_binaries. The usage is only implied by the purpose statement (want readable C-like output rather than raw assembly).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.