binary.get_function_disassembly_at

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'get full disassembly' – a read action – but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, require no side effects, or describe what 'full' entails (e.g., includes instructions, operands, comments?). There is no mention of performance implications, error conditions, or whether it requires a session in a specific state.

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 (9 words) and front-loaded with the key action. However, it underspecifies the tool's purpose and behavior, forcing the agent to infer many details. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices necessary clarity. An appropriate length would include parameter hints or context.

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 the Binary Ninja ecosystem (40+ sibling tools), the lack of output schema, and zero parameter documentation, this description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain what 'full disassembly' returns (instructions, bytes, addresses?), how the address is resolved to a function, or how to handle results. The agent has insufficient information to reliably use this tool.

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 descriptions for the two parameters (session_id, address). The tool description adds zero information about these parameters. It does not explain the format of address (integer vs string), the role of session_id, or any constraints. This leaves the agent completely reliant on conventions from sibling tools.

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 explicitly states 'get full disassembly' (specific verb and resource) and clarifies the scope as 'function containing an address.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like binary.get_function_at (which returns a function object) or disasm.function (which may focus on linear disassembly). However, it does not name specific sibling tools for contrast.

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 such as disasm.function, disasm.range, or binary.basic_blocks_at. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requires analyzed binary) or context where this tool is preferred. The description only states the action without any usage conditions.

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