coco_read_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely important trait — reads go through the MMU window, and $0400 maps to the text screen only in CoCo 1/2-compatible mode. However it says nothing about return encoding, behavior on unmapped/out-of-range addresses, or whether reads have side effects.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the crucial scope constraint ('not physical RAM') front-loaded. No filler. The $0400 sentence is narrow but earns its place as a concrete mapping example.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the address space but omits how bytes are returned (hex string vs. array) and error behavior for invalid addresses/lengths. Adequate but leaves a real gap for a tool whose whole job is producing a value.

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 both address and length are already documented with formats and ranges. The description reinforces the address semantics (MMU window) and adds the $0400 example, which is useful domain context but largely overlaps the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource (read bytes) with an explicit scope qualifier: the current 64K MMU window rather than physical RAM. This is enough to separate it from coco_write_memory by direction, though no sibling is named. Purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the addressing semantics rather than stated. The description does not say when to prefer this over, say, coco_snapshot or coco_status for inspecting machine state, nor does it set preconditions (e.g., machine must be running).

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