read_memory_cached

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

Describes the caching behavior: 'shows data as the CPU sees it through its data cache, not the stale value on the bus'. No annotations exist, so description carries burden well. No mention of side effects, but read operation is likely safe.

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?

Concise: two short paragraphs plus Args/Returns. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.

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?

Given low complexity and presence of output schema (though schema not fully shown), description adequately explains usage and return value. Could mention that it's a cached read and doesn't access physical bus, but overall complete.

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?

Description provides explicit details for all 3 parameters: address as hex string, length in bytes, width with possible values (8,16,32,64) and default (32). Schema only has titles and default, so description adds significant value.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read memory using cache-aware access (D: prefix)' and distinguishes from siblings by noting it shows data as CPU sees through its data cache, not stale bus value.

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?

Explicitly says 'Essential for debugging code that modifies cached memory (e.g., shared variables in LMU on TC39x)', giving clear context when to use. Does not list when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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