disassemble

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's mention of capability gates adds some context. But it omits details about output format, error behavior, or side effects, which would enhance transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary action. The escape hatch note is useful but not essential. However, the lack of parameter details reduces efficiency, as the agent may need to infer from context.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of parameters or the return value, which is critical for correct invocation in a debug context.

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. It only mentions 'memoryReference' but does not explain offset, instruction_offset, instruction_count, or resolve_symbols, leaving the agent without crucial parameter semantics.

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 verb ('Disassemble') and resource ('machine instructions around a memoryReference'). It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among debug siblings, as no other tool performs 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?

Explicitly advises to use a stack frame's instructionPointerReference or executable memoryReference, and mentions the capability gate. The escape hatch hint provides a fallback. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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