memory_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains address formats, type options, and special cases (size, wide). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or describe error behavior on invalid addresses.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then detailing address and parameters in separate lines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite covering core functionality, it lacks mention of return value format, error handling, and does not contextualize when to use this tool versus batch reads. Given 5 parameters and no output schema, more completeness would help.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for address (formats), size (applies to string/aob), wide (UTF-16), and type (list). However, it fails to describe the 'signed' parameter, leaving a gap.

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 clearly states 'Read a value from memory' with a specific verb and resource. It elaborates on address formats and types, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'memory_read_batch', which serves a similar but batch purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., memory_read_batch) or when not to use it. The description only explains what it does, but lacks context for selection.

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