get_string

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

No annotations exist, so the description should detail behaviors like error handling, return format for invalid addresses, or thread-safety. Only 'Read strings' is provided, which is minimal and leaves significant ambiguity.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters with full schema coverage and an output schema exists, reducing the need for extra detail. However, lacking annotations and behavioral description, it falls short for a complete understanding, especially regarding error conditions and return value structure.

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 100% with adequate descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding. The 'addrs' parameter allows both array and single string, which is not clarified.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('strings from memory addresses'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_bytes (bytes) and get_int (integers). The resource is specific, though could be more explicit about encoding (e.g., null-terminated).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_bytes or get_int. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., address validity, process state). The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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