trace_memory_access

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 states the core action but does not mention side effects like launching MAME, writing log files, performance overhead, or what the 'deduped accesses' output actually looks like. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a side-effect-heavy tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the primary action and output nature, though it is arguably too minimal for such a parametrized tool; that trade-off is better penalized under completeness, not 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?

This is a 12-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only provides a one-line summary. It fails to explain return values, log format, the effect of dryRun, or how ranges and trackReads interact. A much richer description is needed for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the high-level notion of CPU address ranges and deduped accesses, which is already implied by the tool name and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Install') with a clear resource ('Lua read/write taps over CPU address ranges') and a distinct outcome ('log deduped accesses'). It clearly distinguishes this from one-shot memory access tools like mame_read_memory/mame_write_memory and from the narrower trace_cchip_superman.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mame_read_memory, mame_write_memory, or trace_cchip_superman. The description implies a tracing use case but gives no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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