dosbox_read_memory

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states that unmapped bytes are indistinguishable from zero, which is useful, but it fails to mention that reading memory likely requires the emulator to be paused, or that it may fail if running, or other potential side effects. The description is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about operational constraints.

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, consisting of a single sentence. Every word is meaningful, and the critical caveat about unmapped bytes is front-loaded. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema and 5 parameters, the tool is relatively simple (reading memory). However, the lack of guidance on parameter semantics and operational prerequisites leaves the description incomplete. The output schema may clarify return values, but the description doesn't explain how to use the various options like output_path or allow_running, and the tool's complexity (interaction with emulator state) demands more detail than one sentence.

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?

There are 5 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of them are documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameter details at all aside from implying address and size in 'physical memory', but there is no explanation of 'overwrite', 'output_path', or 'allow_running', which are non-obvious. The description fails to provide the necessary compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Read physical memory', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though none of the siblings are memory-related, so the distinction is implicit.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites like pausing emulation, or that it should be used for debugging memory values, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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