Read Scalar

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it adds essentially nothing: it does not say whether this is a safe read or a mutating call, whether it touches process memory or the IDB, or how multi-address / comma-separated reads behave. Only the tool name implies read-only behavior.

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 borders on under-specification rather than true economy for a five-parameter tool.

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?

Five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description supplies no return-shape expectations, no error conditions, and no guidance for the comma-separated multi-address case. For a tool of this complexity, one sentence is not enough.

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 addr format, width values (1/2/4/8), signedness, timeout, and instance_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description's only parameter hint, 'explicit width', merely repeats the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It names a verb (Read), a resource (scalar integer), and a modifier (explicit width), so the operation is not a pure tautology. But it does nothing to separate itself from siblings like get_bytes, dbg_read_mem, or read_scalar-style readers, and 'scalar' is left undefined in a tool whose schema actually accepts a target address plus width/signedness.

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 statement of when this is preferable to get_bytes, dbg_read_mem, or linear_disasm, and no prerequisites (e.g. a database or debug session must be open) are given. The agent is left to guess from the name alone.

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