read_memory_physical

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the read bypasses cache and may differ from CPU-visible values, and mentions the return format (hex dump). This provides good behavioral transparency for a read operation.

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 well-structured with sections (Args, Returns) and is reasonably concise. It front-loads the key purpose. Some redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it's efficient.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers inputs and output format. It's complete for a physical memory read tool, though error handling or edge cases are not mentioned.

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 parameters. It does so thoroughly: address as hex string, length as bytes, width with possible values (8, 16, 32, 64) and default (32). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema types.

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 the tool reads physical memory bypassing CPU cache. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_memory and read_memory_cached by emphasizing the cache-bypassing behavior.

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 explains the scenario for using this tool (when you need the actual memory bus value, not the cached value). Though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare directly with alternatives, the context is clear enough.

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