dbg_read_memRead specific memory regions from a debugged process by address and size, enabling live inspection of binary data during reverse engineering.
Read memory from debugged process.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regions | Yes | List of {address, size} | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| instance_id | No | Instance id override |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: no mention of partial reads, invalid/unmapped address handling, blocking behavior, or that the timeout parameter governs the wait. An agent cannot predict failure modes.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, yet the description never states what is returned (raw bytes vs. structured regions), how much data comes back, or how the timeout and instance_id interact with a live session. For a memory-inspection tool this leaves key gaps.
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 regions, timeout, and instance_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.
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) and resource (memory) scoped to a debugged process, which distinguishes it from static-analysis siblings like get_bytes. However it does not explicitly contrast with dbg_write_mem or read_scalar, so the differentiation is only 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?
No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The phrase 'debugged process' implies a live debug session must be active, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over get_bytes, read_scalar, or dbg_regs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.