read_bytecode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a parsing/read operation from a specific directory and names the output categories, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, what happens if the module is not closed or unpacked, or any permission/error behavior.

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 one tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then adds useful parenthetical detail about what the bytecode parsing yields. It is concise without sacrificing essential 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?

The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is already covered. However, the description leaves the object_path parameter unexplained and provides no usage boundary against sibling tools. For a low-complexity read operation this is mostly adequate, but the missing parameter semantics and usage guidance keep it from being complete.

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 must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It gives context for dir_path by mentioning the unpack directory, but it says nothing about object_path, which is optional and defaults to empty. An agent cannot infer whether object_path selects a module within the directory or is a path inside the bytecode bundle.

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 uses a specific verb 'Разобрать' (parse), names the resource (bytecode of a closed module), and specifies the source (raw layer of the unpack directory). It also enumerates the content of the parse result (methods, constants, opcode stream), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_module or get_module_structure.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings such as read_module, list_objects, or get_module_structure. The phrase 'from raw-layer of unpack directory' implies a prior unpack step, but there is no direct 'use this when...' statement or exclusion of alternatives.

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