read_debug_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the prerequisite (active debugger) and output format (hex dump), which are useful. However, it does not disclose any side effects, security implications, or error conditions, and the base has no annotations to rely on.

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 only two short sentences that deliver essential information (purpose, prerequisite, output). Every word serves a purpose and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, but does have an output schema that may clarify the return value. The description links to the debugger context but lacks detail on parameter constraints, format of the address string (e.g., hex prefix), or size limits. Given the complexity of memory reading, more guidance on safe usage would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It does not describe the 'address' or 'size' parameters beyond what their names imply. This is a missed opportunity, though the parameter names are somewhat meaningful on their own, resulting in a baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('memory from the debugged process'), and action ('Returns hex dump'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_bytes or disassemble_range by focusing on the debugger context.

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 explicitly states a critical prerequisite ('Requires active debugger'), providing clear guidance on when the tool is valid. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, which prevents a score of 5.

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