disassemble

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds a meaningful failure mode ('fails if unmapped') and the result format, which go beyond the annotations. It stops short of stating pagination/truncation behavior beyond what the schema's count max implies.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with purpose and output format front-loaded before the usage routing and failure note.

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 read-only 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (VA/text rows), when to use it, and the unmapped-address failure. Only minor gaps like output volume/limits remain, and those are partly handled by the schema's max.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only implies that count controls instruction count and that address accepts VA or symbol; it adds little syntax beyond the structured fields, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (disassemble) with a scoped resource (count instructions from any address) and names the output shape (`va text` rows). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling disassemble_function, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use (a few instructions, or code outside functions) and an explicit alternative for the other case (whole function → disassemble_function). No inference required.

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