pwntools_disasm

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

The description adds value by naming the underlying libraries (pwntools + capstone), which is beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety is clear. The description does not contradict 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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the tool's core functionality with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose. It does not detail handling of multiple instructions or error cases, but the output schema likely covers return format. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's 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?

Despite schema description coverage being listed as 0%, the description provides no additional parameter information. It does not mention the 'arch' or 'hex_data' parameters or their formats, failing to compensate for low coverage. The schema's own descriptions partially cover this, but the description should add value.

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 'raw hex bytes into assembly instructions', distinguishing it from sibling tools like edb_disassemble that operate on memory addresses rather than raw bytes. The reference to 'pwntools + capstone' further differentiates the tool as a standalone utility.

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 implies usage for raw hex bytes but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for memory disassembly) or mention of sibling tools like edb_disassemble. The context of 'raw hex bytes' offers implicit usage, but no direct comparison.

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