disasm.function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It names the output ('full disassembly') but does not disclose behavioral details like whether it modifies state (destructive hint), if it requires specific session modes, what happens if the address is invalid, or the format of the returned disassembly. This is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence of 8 words that states the core purpose. No fluff, but it could benefit from a brief second sentence on usage context without losing conciseness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and two required parameters with zero schema documentation, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It doesn't clarify return format, error cases, or parameter meanings.

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 neither schema nor description explain what 'session_id' or 'address' mean. The description implies address is a program counter but doesn't clarify the type or format, nor what session_id refers to. Baseline is 3 due to low coverage but description compensates slightly by linking address to 'containing function'.

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 'Get' and resource 'full disassembly for the function containing an address', clearly indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'disasm.linear' and 'disasm.range' which cover linear/range disassembly, but could more explicitly contrast with those.

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 like 'binary.get_function_disassembly_at' or 'disasm.linear'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the session must be open, the binary must be loaded) or when this tool might be inappropriate.

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