ppsspp_search_memory_info

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

The 'READ-ONLY' statement merely restates readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false already in annotations, and the RETURNS shape is largely covered by the output schema. The one genuinely additive detail is 'Returns a single extent per matching tag', which clarifies result granularity, but permissions, pagination/limits, and failure modes are unaddressed.

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?

Four labeled sections, front-loaded PURPOSE, zero filler sentences. The agent can parse purpose, inputs, safety, and return shape at a glance.

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?

With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema describing the {regions[], count, raw, text} return, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke correctly. Only cross-tool routing guidance is missing.

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 all five parameters (including hex-string address/end semantics and the type filter examples) are already documented in the schema. The description only repeats the case-insensitive substring nature of 'match' and the optionality of the filters, adding nothing new.

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: searching PPSSPP's memory-tracking metadata for allocation/texture tags. This is distinguishable from siblings like ppsspp_search_disasm (disassembly) and ppsspp_scan (memory scanning), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 USAGE line identifies the required inputs (session_id + match) and the optional filters, which implies when the tool applies. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over ppsspp_search_disasm, ppsspp_scan, or ppsspp_read_memory, and no exclusions.

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