disassemble_wasm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: disassembly, summarization of imports/exports, optional WAT generation, fallback behavior when wabt is unavailable, and the return structure. It does not explicitly mention that auto_install_wabt modifies the system, which is a notable omission for a potentially destructive action.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No redundant or verbose phrases.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is comprehensive. It covers all aspects: purpose, parameter details, return format, fallback behavior, and even mentions a related tool (replay_vmp_offline) for entry-function candidates. This provides sufficient context for correct agent invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail. It clarifies that wasm_source format depends on source_kind, generate_wat has a fallback, and auto_install_wabt triggers npm install. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 WebAssembly binaries to WAT text and summarizes imports/exports. The verb 'disassemble' and resource 'WebAssembly binary' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'capture_worker_js' or 'detect_vmp', which address different concerns.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the parameter documentation is detailed, there is no guidance on context or exclusions. However, given that no sibling tool directly overlaps, the lack of explicit when-to-use instructions is acceptable but not ideal.

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