Disassemble Function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about prerequisites (analysis state), failure modes for unknown symbols/addresses, or truncation behavior. The only behavioral hint is the output form (instruction list).

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 clauses with no waste; the output form is front-loaded. Brevity is appropriate, though the second sentence could have carried a bit more information at little cost.

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 needn't be explained, but for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves 'binary' and 'max_lines' entirely undefined and omits the key precondition of analysis state.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real value by explaining that 'function' accepts either a function name or an entry address, but 'binary' and 'max_lines' remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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+resource ('反汇编函数') and clarifies the output form (assembly instruction list), which distinguishes it in spirit from the sibling decompile_function. However, it never names decompile_function explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than 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?

No guidance on when to disassemble rather than decompile, and no stated preconditions (e.g., whether the binary must be analyzed/loaded first). The agent must infer the choice from sibling names alone.

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