get_module_base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (object with name, base, size, path) and that partial matching is supported, but does not mention side effects (likely read-only), failure behavior (e.g., if not found), or permissions needed. The description adds moderate transparency but could be more explicit about error conditions.

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 that efficiently conveys the purpose, return format, and matching behavior. Every element is necessary and front-loaded with the action and result, with no redundant information.

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 (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It specifies the return structure and the nature of the match. However, it omits handling of edge cases like no match or multiple matches, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 input schema describes the 'name' parameter as a string, and the description adds significant meaning by stating 'partial match (e.g., 'akamai', 'libc')'. This clarifies how the parameter is used beyond the schema definition, providing concrete examples and behavior.

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 action 'Get base address' and the resource 'module by name', with additional detail on partial matching and the return structure. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_list_modules (list all modules) or memory_read (read memory at an address).

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 when you need a module's base address via name or partial match, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or provide exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that memory_list_modules could be used first to find the name, or that this tool is for a single module.

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