storm_decompDecompile CyberConnect2 Storm-engine functions with bounded, cache-first output; choose signature, summary, code, or full detail to inspect build-specific behavior.
Bounded decompile summary, cache-first. detail=summary default; sig is cheapest; full can be large.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| head | No | ||
| build | No | ||
| detail | No | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| refresh | No | ||
| max_bytes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world. The description adds cache-first, bounded output, and cost/size trade-offs for detail modes, which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not explain refresh or max_bytes behavior.
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 short clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by parameter cost hints. No filler or repetition.
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?
With 6 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and only detail explained, the description is incomplete for an agent to set target, head, build, refresh, or max_bytes. Output schema and annotations reduce the burden but do not fill the parameter gap.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains the detail enum (defaults/costs) and ignores target, head, build, refresh, and max_bytes.
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 (decompile) and output (bounded summary), plus cache-first behavior. Distinguishes from generic tools but does not name or contrast with any sibling such as storm_explain or storm_show.
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?
Gives operational guidance for the detail parameter (default, cheapest, potentially large) but no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives. Cache-first implies a context for use, yet sibling routing is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.