re_disasm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it provides useful preconditions (e.g., rtti "first qword must be its vtable ptr") and operation semantics. However, it does not disclose output format, failure behavior, or explicitly confirm read-only/no side effects.

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 compact line that front-loads the tool's purpose and uses a terse, readable ops syntax. Each operation and optional parameter earns its place; no filler.

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 is complex (6 operations, 10 parameters, no output schema or annotations). The description covers all ops and params but lacks return-value/behavior information for operations like "bounds" and "analyze_fn". It is adequate but gaps remain.

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?

Although the schema already documents each parameter with defaults and op-specific descriptions, the description adds value by grouping parameters into per-operation signatures (e.g., "vtable {address,max_entries?,disasm_preview?}") and clarifying the rtti precondition. This helps agents assemble valid calls beyond the flat schema.

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 is for "Disassembly & code analysis" and enumerates discrete operations (disasm, vtable, rtti, gensig, bounds, analyze_fn) with their parameters. It is specific about the action and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like re_read or re_proc.

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?

Usage guidance is implied through the operation templates (e.g., "disasm {address,count?,size?,bytes?}"), but the description never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides no exclusions or scenario-based direction.

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