read_struct

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

With no annotations, the description covers main behavior: reading memory, parsing as struct, auto-detection condition. It clearly states the limitation that auto-detection only works if IDA already has type information, which is important for the agent.

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?

Three sentences, no redundant information. Efficiently conveys purpose, usage nuance, and return value without 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?

Covers the essential behavior and auto-detection limitation, but omits details about the array-of-queries option (allowed by schema) and error conditions. Under-specified for a tool that can read multiple structures at once.

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 50% (instance_id has description, queries does not at top level). The description adds value by explaining the optional nature of struct and auto-detection, partially compensating for the missing top-level description of queries. However, it does not elaborate on the addr parameter or the array variant.

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 it reads struct type definitions and parses memory values at an address. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like type_inspect or set_type by focusing on memory reading, though it could be more specific about the output format.

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?

Provides some guidance on auto-detection when struct name is omitted, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings. No alternatives mentioned.

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