arch.disasm_bytes

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 does not mention any side effects, destructive actions, read-only nature, return value format, error conditions, or performance aspects. For a tool that processes raw bytes, information about output structure or potential failures would be valuable.

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 very short (4 words), which is efficient but underspecified. There is no wasted text, but for a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, it leaves out too much critical information. A bit more detail could be added without becoming verbose.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or the relationship to session state. Sibling tools cover many disassembly variations, making additional context essential for proper selection.

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 0%, meaning the JSON schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'selected architecture' which hints at the arch_name parameter, but does not explain address (integer or string format), data_hex (expected hex format), or session_id. Only 2 of 4 parameters are partially addressed, leaving significant gaps.

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 says 'Disassemble bytes with selected architecture,' which identifies the action (disassemble) and resource (bytes). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like disasm.linear, disasm.function, disasm.range, or arch.assemble which could also involve disassembly. The phrase 'with selected architecture' hints at the arch_name parameter, but it's still somewhat vague without specifying that this tool takes raw hex bytes as input.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like disasm.linear or disasm.function. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that an active session is required) or context. The sibling list includes many disassembly-related tools, and this description offers no comparison or use-case advice.

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