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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what decompilation outputs (e.g., pseudo-code, C-like representation), potential limitations (e.g., accuracy issues with obfuscated code), or side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the binary). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation-like tool.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of decompilation (a non-trivial reverse engineering task), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the output format, potential errors, or how results integrate with other tools (e.g., 'get_function_by_address'), leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the 'address' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the address targets a function, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('decompile') and resource ('a function at the given address'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'disassemble_function' or explain what decompilation entails versus disassembly, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a loaded binary), contrast with 'disassemble_function', or specify scenarios where decompilation is preferred over other analysis methods.

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