gdb_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that it executes GDB's x command, outputs bytes and grouped values, and includes optional pauses. It is adequate but could be more explicit about read-only nature and lack of 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?

The description is well-structured with a brief purpose, then behavior explanation, then parameter list. It is not overly verbose but could be slightly more concise. The front-loading is good.

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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers address formats, grouping options, viewing both bytes and words, and pause behavior. It is comprehensive for a memory dump tool.

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%, but the description's 'Args' section details each parameter: address (supports expressions), size, word_size (with typical usage for i386), pause_first, include_bytes, and include_words. It adds defaults and usage context 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?

The description clearly states it views a specified memory region using GDB's x command, suitable for checking source/next chunk/victim content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gdb_chunk for heap chunks or gdb_command for arbitrary GDB commands.

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 indicates when to use it ('适合模型检查 source/next chunk/victim 附近内容') and explains address expression formats. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like gdb_chunk, which is mentioned in sibling tools.

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