get_data_dump

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the operation is read-only (returns formatted dump), describes the output format, and lists default parameter values. However, it does not cover potential side effects (unlikely) or performance implications for large lengths.

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 succinct and well-organized, with a brief summary, a comparison to a known tool, and structured Args/Returns sections. No extraneous information.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description already covers the return format ('Formatted hex dump with addresses, hex values, and ASCII'). For a 3-parameter tool with no nested objects, this is complete and sufficient for correct invocation.

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 must explain all parameters. It provides clear explanations: address with example formats, length with default 256, and width with acceptable values (8,16,32,64) and default 32. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves a formatted memory dump (hex + ASCII). The comparison to TRACE32's Data.dump window and the detailed output description ('address, hex values, and ASCII representation') make the purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_memory which likely return raw bytes.

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 implies this tool is for viewing formatted dumps via the TRACE32 analogy, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like read_memory or read_memory_cached. No direct guidance on prerequisites or limiting factors (e.g., address validity, alignment).

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