emulator_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. It mentions the output format (uppercase hex string), which is useful, but doesn't disclose potential side effects, whether reading from unmapped memory causes errors, addressing semantics (which domain means what), or behavioral differences between the emulator and bizhawk backends. The output format disclosure is a small positive but overall insufficient.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the purpose and output format. However, it's so minimal that it underspecifies rather than being efficiently concise. For the length of content provided, it's well-structured, but there's room to add value without bloat.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and nested sibling tools (bizhawk_read_memory) that suggest dual backends. Given this complexity, the description is inadequate — it would be hard for an agent to know what domains are valid, how to format addresses, what length units are, and how this differs from bizhawk_read_memory.

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 for all 4 parameters. It does not explain 'domain' (what domains are valid), what address formats are accepted (integer vs string presumably hex), what 'length' means in units, or what 'target' (gb) refers to. The description adds zero information beyond what the schema types provide, failing to compensate for the 0% coverage.

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 states 'Read a memory range and return its bytes as an uppercase hex string' with a specific verb+resource (read memory range) and describes the output format. It's clear in purpose. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish from the sibling bizhawk_read_memory tool, and the sibling emulator_step/emulator_status tools share similar emulator context, though read_memory is semantically distinct enough.

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 versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to read memory, why you'd use this over bizhawk_read_memory, or any context about emulator state requirements (e.g., must the emulator be running? must a ROM be loaded?). The description provides no usage context or exclusions.

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