resolve_pointer_chain

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the last offset is added without a final dereference so the result is the address the value lives at, and negative offsets are permitted. That yields exactly the semantics an agent needs to interpret the output.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose before the recipe example and param details. Detailed but every sentence carries information (dereference semantics, negative offsets). The docstring-style layout is slightly verbose relative to what a tool description needs, but nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers purpose, mechanics, and the relevant parameters. The only shortfall is the absent session_id context and no explicit statement of when to use this versus the path-finding sibling.

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 it does well: base_address is defined as hex, usually module_base + static_offset; offsets are hex strings with negative values allowed, ordering explained, and the last-offset/empty-list edge cases called out. Only session_id goes undescribed, which is a minor gap for an otherwise thoroughly documented parameter set.

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 precise verb+resource ("Walk a known multi-level pointer chain to its final address") and the word "known" distinguishes it from the sibling find_pointer_paths, which discovers paths. An agent can tell what this does and how it differs from neighbors without opening a schema.

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?

It implies the workflow (combine with process_info's module base_address to build the start address; read the result with read_value), which is useful context. But it never explicitly states when to choose this over find_pointer_paths, nor any exclusion or precondition beyond the build-up hint. Adequate but implied rather than stated.

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