disassemble_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only or mutating (though 'Get' implies read-only), what the output format is (e.g., raw assembly lines, structured data), error handling, or performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose.

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 a disassembly operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., text, structured data), potential side effects, or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'get_current_address'. For a tool with one parameter but significant behavioral implications, more context is needed.

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 single parameter 'start_address' well-documented in the schema as 'Address of the function to disassemble'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as address format examples or validation rules, but the schema provides adequate baseline information.

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 ('Get') and resource ('assembly code for a function'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'decompile_function' (which might produce higher-level code) or 'get_function_by_address' (which might retrieve metadata), leaving room for ambiguity in a crowded toolset.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to prefer 'disassemble_function' over 'decompile_function' or how it relates to 'get_current_function' for context. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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