disassemble

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the meaningful scoping behavior of whole_function (chained fragments vs. exact addr), which goes beyond the raw boolean. But it says nothing about read-only nature, output shape, or permission requirements.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the conditional behavior. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. For a 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, however, the description leaves addr format, build, and max_insns semantics unaddressed, making it only minimally adequate.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains whole_function's behavior, but leaves addr, build, and max_insns (including the 200 default cap) entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Annotated disassembly") that is distinct from siblings like read_memory or function_info. It doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the disassembly purpose is clear enough to identify the tool.

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?

Explains the two modes governed by whole_function (function start + chained fragments vs. exactly at addr), which implies when each mode applies. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as read_memory or function_info.

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