probe_read_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states that memory is read, but does not disclose whether the probe must be connected or halted, what happens on an invalid address, or what the response looks like. The read-only nature is implied but richer behavioral context is absent.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, the phrase 'at address (bytes)' is slightly ambiguous and the brevity omits important context that is penalized in other dimensions.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in all situations. The agent may guess that address is required, but length and probe_id semantics, probe session requirements, and return behavior remain unclear.

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%, and the description only clarifies the address concept. The 'bytes' hint weakly covers the length parameter's unit, but probe_id is entirely unexplained, and there is no guidance on address format or length limits. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read memory at address'. It is immediately distinct from sibling tools like probe_read_registers, which read registers rather than memory. The parenthetical '(bytes)' also conveys the unit context, making the tool's core action unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as probe_read_registers, source_read, or read_rtt_log. It does not state prerequisites like needing an active probe connection or halted target, nor does it mention any exclusions or when not to use it.

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