disassemble

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already indicate a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds the 'bounded instruction range' detail, which is useful context, but it does not describe output format, error behavior, or limitations beyond the 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 one concise sentence, which is appropriately short and front-loaded. However, the term 'bridge disassembly abstraction' is jargon and does not add meaningful clarity, so it is not perfect.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the disassembly result looks like, but it does not. It also omits important context such as the fixed architecture (arm64) and the maximum instruction count, which are only present in the schema.

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 only 33% (only 'address' has a description), and the tool description does not compensate. The phrase 'bounded instruction range' hints at instructionCount, but it does not explain how parameters interact or what 'address' and 'instructionCount' mean in practice.

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 uses a specific verb ('Decode') and a resource ('a bounded instruction range'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_memory and dump_memory. The phrase 'through the bridge disassembly abstraction' is somewhat vague, but the overall purpose is still clear.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_memory or dump_memory. It does not mention prerequisites, such as attaching to a process, or scenarios where disassembly is appropriate.

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