Read up to 1024 bytes from a target process's memory and return hex data for headless debugging, register inspection, and dynamic analysis.
Read up to 1024 bytes of target memory. Returns hex.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ea | Yes | Address | |
| size | No | Byte count (max 1024) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the maximum byte count and that output is hex, but says nothing about address validity, failure behavior, permissions, or side effects.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraint, with no wasted words.
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 read tool with full parameter schema coverage, the description covers the essential result format and size limit. Minor gaps remain around address handling and failure modes.
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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description restates the 1024-byte cap but adds no further meaning about address syntax or size behavior beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('target memory'), and scope ('up to 1024 bytes'), and distinguishes itself from sibling register reads by specifying memory rather than registers.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as pin_read_regs or pin_write_mem. The description only implies its basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.