windbg_read_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read memory' signals a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., invalid address), return structure, or side effects beyond the basic read intent.

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 that states the action and lists the format options. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple read operation with fully described parameters in the schema, the description is sufficiently complete. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the returned bytes are implied by the tool name and format choices; no additional return semantics are necessary.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter (address, fmt, count) having a descriptive definition. The description adds the format list, but this is already captured by the fmt enum in the schema, so it provides no additional semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), clearly identifies the resource ('memory'), and enumerates the supported formats (byte/word/dword/qword/ascii/unicode/pointer), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_write_memory or windbg_search_memory.

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 description clearly implies a memory inspection use case but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. There are no exclusion criteria or context triggers, leaving the agent to infer applicability among a large sibling set.

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