read_memory

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

The description states it returns a clean hex dump, which explains output format. However, with no annotations, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether reading is safe or if it requires target halt). It doesn't mention error handling for invalid addresses.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and quickly states return format.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool without output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on alignment, endianness, or error cases. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., target must be halted). Could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (address as hex string, length as number). The description adds no additional context beyond the schema, so 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 it reads memory and returns a clean hex dump. It distinguishes from siblings like write_memory by focusing on reading, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from read_register or rtt_read, though the name implies memory vs register.

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 usage guidelines are provided. It doesn't suggest when to use this tool instead of alternatives like read_register or when the target should be halted. The description is too brief to guide selection.

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