DisasmRange

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses pagination behavior and that continuation is driven by an opaque cursor token. The only wrinkle is that it calls the token 'nextCursor' while the input parameter is named 'cursor', which slightly blurs how to resume.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the pagination note second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 five-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It omits address encoding, the semantics of 'detail' and 'max_instructions', and any indication of the return shape or how paging terminates, leaving an agent unable to invoke it confidently beyond the trivial case.

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% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it never explains the address format for start/end, the meaning of 'detail', or what max_instructions (default 4096) controls. The only parameter-adjacent hint is 'nextCursor', which is not even an input parameter name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Disassemble a raw address range') and scopes it with the qualifier 'without guessing function bounds', which signals it differs from any boundary-inferring disassembly path. It is clear and specific, but it never names a sibling tool to contrast against, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'without guessing function bounds' implies the tool is the right choice when the caller already knows the exact range, and the second sentence tells the agent how to continue paging. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternative tool named for the case where function bounds are unknown.

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