disassemble_binary

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: analysis in a WASM isolated environment without host execution. However, it does not address other important aspects like response format, rate limits, or data handling. Minimal but adequate for safety.

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?

Single sentence in Korean, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary text, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for clarity).

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 description covers the main purpose and isolation context, but lacks details about output (e.g., what the disassembly looks like, what 'strings' mode returns) despite having no output schema. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, more contextual completeness would be beneficial.

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?

Input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions (binary_base64, arch with enums, mode with enums). The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool disassembles suspicious binaries (exe/machine code) in a WASM-isolated environment without execution, outputting x86_64/ARM64 assembly. It distinguishes from siblings like execute_sandbox which likely executes rather than disassembles.

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 implies usage when you want to analyze a binary without executing it, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., execute_sandbox for execution). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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