jar_disassemble

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing an environmental requirement ('needs a JDK on PATH'), a supported-input limitation ('nested ! specs are not supported'), and a size-related behavior ('empty returns every method (often large)'). These details help the agent anticipate real-world failure modes and avoid huge outputs.

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 tightly organized: purpose first, usage guidance second, then a clean Args list. Every sentence adds operational value; there is no filler or repetition of structured data.

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 read-only inspection tool with an output schema and four parameters, the description provides all essential context: prerequisites, when to use it, parameter semantics, and an important limitation. Nothing critical is missing for selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It compensates thoroughly: jar is described as 'Archive path or classes directory' with a limitation, class_name as 'FQCN, simple name or glob', method with its empty-value behavior, and limit as 'Maximum lines of disassembly'.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Disassemble one method's bytecode with javap'. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by explaining it is for when 'the API outline and the source are not enough', which distinguishes it from jar_class_outline, jar_read_source, and similar tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Reach for this only when the API outline and the source are not enough', with concrete examples like checking what a method compiles to or reading a class with no sources. It also gives a practical directive to 'Always pass method to keep it small', which helps the agent invoke it correctly.

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