patch.assemble

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies instruction bytes, but does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting, alignment, reverting), permission requirements, or undo capabilities. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections, examples) and is too brief to convey necessary details. It is not an example of effective conciseness but rather under-specification.

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?

For a tool that patches binary instructions (a delicate operation) with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return value, error conditions, address format, and any behavioral context. The description barely meets the minimum to indicate the tool's function.

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%, and the description adds no information about the three parameters. 'asm', 'address', and 'session_id' are not explained at all. The agent must infer meaning solely from the parameter names, which is insufficient.

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 action ('assemble and patch') and resource ('instruction bytes at address'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling patch tools (which are more specific operations) and from 'arch.assemble' (which assembles without patching). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate from similar tools.

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 other patch tools or arch.assemble. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned. The description lacks usage context entirely.

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