disasm.range

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's output type ('lines') without mentioning that it is a read operation, any authentication needs, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 at three words, but this is under-specification rather than efficient communication. Every word is earned, but the description lacks critical details, so the conciseness comes at the cost of clarity.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return value structure, pagination behavior, or the relationship between parameters. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's usage without external context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. While 'start', 'length', and 'limit' are somewhat intuitive, the description fails to explain how they interplay (e.g., start as address or offset, length in bytes, limit on results). The agent must infer from names alone.

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 'Address-range disassembly lines' clearly indicates the tool returns disassembly for a given address range. The verb is implied (list/return), and the resource is specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like disasm.linear or disasm.function, relying on the name for differentiation.

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. The context signals show many sibling disassembly tools, but the description offers no criteria for selection, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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