disassemble

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

No annotations exist, but the description details the behavior: it uses GDB's disassemble command, explains location syntax and source interleaving. This is sufficient for a read-only inspection tool.

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, well-structured with bullet points for parameters, and front-loads the core action. Every sentence provides meaningful information.

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 (not shown), return values need not be explained. The description covers essential usage and parameter options. It could mention the requirement of an active session, but session_id is required, so it's implied.

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%, but the description fully explains each parameter: location (function name, *address, range, or omit), with_source (interleaves C source). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 it disassembles code (specific verb + resource) and explains the location parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling debugger commands by focusing on disassembly.

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 gives a guideline to omit location for current function, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like backtrace, step, or examine. No sibling comparison is provided.

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