scan_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the scanning operation as read-only, but does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or safety guarantees. The implied read-only nature is sufficient but not explicit.

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 (5 lines) and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence is informative: purpose, use case, parameter list, and return value. No wasted words.

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 an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and return summary ('list of offsets and values'). However, it could briefly mention that the scan is non-destructive or specify the return format's structure, though the output schema likely covers that.

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 fully compensates. It explains the format of 'address' (hex), the unit and default of 'size' (bytes), and the range filtering via 'min_val' and 'max_val'. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 uses specific verbs ('scan') and resources ('memory structure for float values'), and distinguishes itself by mentioning a concrete use case ('exploring discovered pointer chains to find wheel visual offsets'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'scan_pattern' or 'read_memory'.

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 description provides a clear context for use ('when exploring pointer chains for wheel offsets'), implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to alternatives like 'scan_pattern'.

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