ppsspp_memory_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'BEHAVIOR: READ-ONLY' is a restatement that adds no new information. The RETURNS line hints at output shape, but an output schema already exists, so nothing about side effects, session prerequisites, or failure modes is added beyond structured data.

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 PURPOSE/USAGE/BEHAVIOR/RETURNS labeling is front-loaded and scannable, and the whole description is four short lines with no prose padding. The USAGE and RETURNS lines are largely redundant with the schema and output schema, which is a small waste rather than a structural flaw.

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 single-parameter read tool, the safety profile (annotations), parameter (schema), and return shape (output schema) are all covered by structured fields, and the purpose line names the exact resource. The only real omission — routing guidance among the many memory-related siblings — is a usage-guideline gap rather than a completeness one.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Active session ID.' in the schema; 'USAGE: session_id' in the description adds no syntax, format, or validity detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 and resource — 'Get the PPSSPP memory region map' — and enumerates the sub-regions (user/kernel/VRAM), so an agent knows it retrieves the address-space layout rather than bytes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like ppsspp_read_memory or ppsspp_list_addresses, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

'USAGE: session_id' merely restates the sole required parameter and gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. An agent cannot tell from this description whether to prefer it over ppsspp_read_memory, ppsspp_list_addresses, or ppsspp_search_memory_info.

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