edb_assemble

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

The description discloses the destructive write nature ('write it to memory') and fallback behavior, which adds context beyond annotations (destructiveHint: true). No contradiction with annotations.

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 fairly concise with a clear structure (main action, args list with examples, return). Slightly repetitive in the args section, but overall efficient.

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 output schema exists, the description covers the main functionality and fallback mechanism. It lacks details on prerequisites or error handling, but is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (address and instruction), so the description adds little extra. However, it provides examples and fallback info, which slightly enhances understanding.

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 it assembles an instruction and writes to memory, distinguishing it from siblings like edb_disassemble or pwntools_asm. It also specifies the resource and action, and mentions equivalence to EDB's Assembler plugin.

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 context about using keystone engine and fallback, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs similar tools like pwntools_asm. It lacks when-not or exclusion scenarios.

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