mame_read_memory

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the core read operation and does not disclose the return format (e.g., hex string encoding), endianness, error handling, or whether the read is non-destructive. The 'hex' parenthetical is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the address format or the output.

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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and object, making it easy to skim. However, it is perhaps too terse, but for conciseness it scores well.

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 operates within a MAME session context, but the description does not mention this dependency, nor does it explain what the output looks like (critical since there is no output schema). It also fails to specify whether the read is from the CPU's program space only via the space parameter and if there are constraints on alignment or length. Overall, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the 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?

The schema describes three parameters with zero description coverage, and the description does not explain the meanings of addr, len, or space beyond the implied memory block concept. It does not clarify that len is a byte length, addr is an integer starting address, or that space defaults to ':maincpu'. The 'hex' hint is insufficient.

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 a memory block, specifies the hex format, and indicates the target as a device's program space. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mame_write_memory and trace_memory_access.

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 information is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as trace_memory_access for access pattern tracing or get_regs for register inspection. There is no mention of prerequisites like an active session or when a memory read is appropriate.

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