rea_patch_dump

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is read-only and that offset accepts a 0x hexadecimal prefix, but it omits output format, length behavior, error conditions, and any limits on how many bytes can be dumped.

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 with no wasted words, stating the core action and the most important parameter format immediately.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is too sparse. It does not explain the return value (which is important without an output schema), the default length of 16, or how length constrains the dump.

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 three parameters. It only addresses offset by mentioning 0x-prefix hexadecimal support, which is useful but also potentially conflicts with the schema's integer type; file_path and length are not explained at all.

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 a specific operation: read-only viewing of bytes at a file offset. It identifies the resource (file bytes at an offset) and the read-only nature, but does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as rea_patch_text_view or rea_patch_text_search.

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 only usage signal is '只读查看' (read-only view), which implies safe inspection but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus text_view, text_search, or other dump/inspection siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative conditions provided.

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