get_bytes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic read operation and output format. It does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, permission requirements, or whether the address must be in a loaded segment. For a read tool, minimal transparency is provided.

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: two sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, the return format, and the default behavior. It front-loads the critical information.

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 and the existence of an output schema, the description defines the basic behavior. However, it lacks differentiation from siblings and does not explain address validity or error handling, leaving an agent to infer important context from the tool name alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by mentioning 'default reads 16 bytes' for the 'size' parameter. However, it does not describe the expected format for 'address' (e.g., hex string or numeric) or that 'size' can be any positive integer. Partial compensation.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('raw bytes from an address'), clearly stating the tool's core function. It also notes the output format ('hex dump') and the default size, distinguishing it from tools like 'read_debug_memory' which reads runtime 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'disassemble_range' or 'read_debug_memory'. The description does not mention constraints like valid address ranges, static vs. debug context, or when a hex dump is preferable to other representations.

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