list_memory_regions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the server caps the page size and points the agent to server_info().limits.max_page_size, plus the semantic meaning of each region class. That is useful operational context beyond the annotations.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and the RST ':param' block is scannable. The formatting is slightly verbose for what it conveys, but no sentence is filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the pagination and filter semantics are well covered. The only gap is the undocumented required session_id parameter, which is a minor omission for an otherwise complete definition.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it explains writable regions ('mutable state'), executable regions ('code'), substring matching for path_filter, and the cap/reference for limit. Only session_id, the single required parameter, is left unexplained.

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 and resource ('Page through the target's memory map'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_processes or list_scan_results, but the resource name is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is implied through the filter parameters (e.g. writable_only is framed as 'the values worth scanning for'), which hints at a scan-preparation workflow. However, it never states when to call this versus siblings such as list_scan_results or process_info, nor any prerequisites beyond the session_id requirement.

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