get_bytesRead raw bytes from one or more addresses in an IDA Pro instance to inspect binary data during reverse engineering. Specify addresses and optional size to retrieve bytes.
Read raw bytes at address(es).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addr | Yes | Address(es) to read from - single or comma-separated | |
| size | No | Number of bytes to read (1..4096) | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not state permissions, error behavior, timeout handling, or what happens with multiple addresses. It adds little beyond the bare operation.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple read operation and every word earns its place.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain the return format and behavior for multiple addresses or size limits. It gives only the operation name, leaving an agent without enough context to interpret results or handle edge cases.
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 addr, size, timeout, and instance_id in detail. The description mentions address(es) but adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: read raw bytes at address(es). It is clear what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like read_scalar, dbg_read_mem, get_string, or find_bytes, so it falls short of 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states what it does. This matches the calibration for a no-guidance description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.