反汇编

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

Annotations already specify readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly safe and idempotent. The description adds that the default behavior is to disassemble the current function, but it does not elaborate on the output format or any side effects, which would typically be understood for a disassembly tool.

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 exceptionally concise with no fluff. The primary purpose is stated upfront, followed by a clear parameter listing. Every sentence is justified and adds to understanding.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers the default behavior and parameter usage. However, it could be improved by mentioning the output format (e.g., assembly instructions) to ensure the agent knows what to expect.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented structurally. The description offers translations into Chinese and restates that both are optional, which adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 either the current function or a specified address range. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gdb_command or gdb_read_memory.

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 explains that start and end parameters are optional and defaults to disassembling the current function. It provides clear context but does not offer explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, which is acceptable given the straightforward nature of disassembly.

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