decompile_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output type (C pseudocode) and accepted inputs, but it does not mention prerequisites such as the file being open or analyzed, potential failure cases, or whether the operation is read-only.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the main verb, specifies the tool, and includes relevant examples. No unnecessary content.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. A minor gap is the lack of explicit note about needing an open/analyzed binary, but the sibling list provides some context.

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 schema has only one parameter with 0% coverage, but the description fully compensates by providing concrete examples and clarifying that both addresses and function names are accepted. This is exactly what an agent needs to correctly populate the parameter.

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 decompiles a specified memory address or function name into C pseudocode using Ghidra. The verb 'decompile' and the resource distinction set it apart from sibling tools like disassemble_function and list_functions.

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 gives explicit input formats and examples (0x140001000, fcn.140001000, main), making it clear how to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like disassemble_function, but the context is clear enough.

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