disassemble

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses return fields, safety while paused, and address formats. However, it does not specify side effects (likely read-only), error behavior (e.g., invalid address), or constraints (e.g., maximum count). The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 (4 sentences) and well-structured. Each sentence serves a purpose: main action, return fields, safety, address format + tip. No redundancy or unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description explains return fields, which is helpful. It covers address formats, safety, and a use case tip. However, it does not detail output structure (e.g., metadata fields), error conditions, or supported instruction set. For a straightforward tool, it is fairly complete but could elaborate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining address formats (hex or symbol) and providing a practical tip. This goes beyond the schema, which only states 'Start address (hex) or symbol.' The count default is already in schema, but the tip enhances usability.

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: 'Disassemble instructions starting at a given address in the loaded module.' It specifies the verb (disassemble), resource (instructions), and scope (starting address). The return fields are listed, and the tool is distinct from siblings like analyze_function or search_memory.

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: 'Safe to call while paused' and a practical tip about using after load_executable with breakOnEntry=true. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use, prerequisites (e.g., session must be active, module loaded), or alternatives among siblings.

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