bizhawk_read_range

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

States 'No side effects — pure read' and lists three error conditions (unknown domain, length out of range, address+length exceeds domain). With no annotations, this provides good behavioral transparency, though it omits potential rate limits or other edge cases.

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?

Description is structured with clear labels (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and every sentence adds value. It is concise, front-loading key information, and avoids redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (header + hex bytes) and error conditions. It also mentions the workflow context. However, it lacks an explicit example of the return string, which would aid completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for address (0-based per-domain), length (1-4096 with hard cap), and domain (optional with examples and error condition). Description adds context beyond schema, such as the per-domain offset meaning and the chunking limit.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read a contiguous range of bytes from emulator memory' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings by noting usage for >4 bytes and references the two-snapshot workflow, making purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for >4 bytes to avoid multiple round-trips and max 4096 bytes per call with chunking advice. Implies when not to use by contrasting with single-byte reads, but does not explicitly name sibling tools like bizhawk_read8/16/32 as alternatives.

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