pet_rom_disasm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only disassembly operation but does not disclose whether it modifies state, requires an active session, or what the output format is. Key behavioral aspects like side effects and constraints are missing.

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: two sentences that clearly convey the tool's purpose and a critical parameter detail. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits explanations for two parameters and provides no information about return values or behavioral context. A more complete description is needed for effective use.

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 must explain parameters beyond the schema. It only describes the 'start' parameter format, leaving 'length' (default 32) and 'session' (nullable string) unexplained. This is insufficient for a three-parameter tool.

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 verb 'disassemble' and the resource 'live memory with ROM + session symbol annotations'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like pet_mem_read (raw memory read) and pet_build (build) by specifying the annotation context.

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?

The description provides guidance on the start parameter format (hex, decimal, or symbol), which is helpful for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like pet_mem_read or pet_mem_find, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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