Disassemble Luau bytecode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds valuable context by detailing the analysis pipeline (decode, pseudo-code, CFG, evidence extraction). It does not contradict annotations and offers more behavioral detail than the annotations alone.

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 a single sentence but each clause adds distinct value (read, decode, generate, build, extract). It is efficient and front-loaded with the primary verb, though slightly dense.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, and the description does not explain parameter semantics, usage context, or return value structure. While it lists outputs, it omits necessary details like maxInstructions limits or protoId selection, leaving gaps for a complex analysis tool.

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 only 20% (clientId only). The description does not mention path, protoId, maxInstructions, or opcodeMultiplier, nor their purposes. It implies path is the script target but provides no additional meaning for the other parameters.

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 specific verbs and resources: reads serialized Luau bytecode, decodes instructions, generates pseudo code, builds a control-flow graph, and extracts behavioral evidence. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_script or build_script_graph.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states it reads bytecode locally, but does not mention when to prefer this over analyze_script, explore_closure, or build_script_graph, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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