edb_instruction_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the returned content (bytes, opcode, operands) and the default address ($pc), which are beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a reference to an equivalent plugin, and a clear Args/Returns block. No redundant information, and it is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the input parameter, return type, and content. It is mostly complete but lacks details about error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid addresses). Given the complexity, this is acceptable.

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 input schema contains a single parameter with a description ('Address to inspect (default: $pc)'), but schema description coverage is reported as 0%, likely indicating the description is not in the schema itself. The tool's description repeats this and adds the default value, providing clarity beyond what the raw schema would offer. Given the low coverage, the description compensates well.

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 tool's purpose: to get detailed information about an instruction at a given address. It mentions specific content (bytes, assembly, addressing modes, register operands) and distinguishes itself by referencing the InstructionInspector plugin, differentiating it from siblings like edb_disassemble or edb_get_current_instruction.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to inspect an instruction in detail) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. While the sibling list includes similar tools (e.g., edb_get_current_instruction), no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer usage contexts.

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