read_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful details: returns both hex and ASCII views, and explains the dot-substitution convention for non-printable characters, tying it to hexdump. The word 'Peek' strongly implies a non-mutating read, though it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or error conditions, which would be useful.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and parameters. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second explains a display convention. No redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity, the description covers the essential behavior: what it reads, how much, and the return format. An output schema exists, so the return structure need not be fully described. However, missing details such as behavior on invalid addresses or length boundaries are minor omissions. Overall, it is sufficient for a straightforward memory-read tool.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains 'length' and 'addr' in context ('Peek `length` bytes starting at `addr`'), which directly clarifies these two parameters. 'session_id' is not mentioned, but it is a common context parameter that the agent can infer from the tool name and sibling tools, so this is a minor gap.

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's function: 'Peek `length` bytes starting at `addr`' – a specific verb with resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like disassemble and read_registers by specifying the output is hex and ASCII views, making its raw-memory-inspection role 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 implies usage for raw memory inspection via 'Peek' and 'hex and ASCII views', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like disassemble or read_registers. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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