edb_disassemble

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a formatted disassembly listing, but does not mention error conditions or limitations beyond the annotations. No contradictions 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 concise with two introductory sentences followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary detail but includes essential information. Slightly verbose in listing defaults, 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 presence of annotations, an output schema description, and clear parameter semantics, the description covers the main aspects. It lacks descriptions of error scenarios or assumptions about the debugger state, but the core functionality is fully explained.

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 description expands on the schema by providing examples for location (e.g., '0x400000', 'main') and specifying the count range and default value explicitly. Although the schema already includes descriptions and constraints, the examples add practical clarity. Schema description coverage is low at 0% (likely referring to the top-level params), but the description compensates effectively.

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 'machine code at an address or function.' It specifies the output format (assembly instructions with addresses, offsets, and opcodes), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like edb_assemble or edb_instruction_detail.

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 alternatives such as edb_disassemble_range or edb_instruction_detail. The description lacks prerequisites, context for when it is appropriate, or when to avoid using it.

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