ppsspp_read_string

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

Given no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: pure read with no side effects, reads until null terminator, decodes UTF-8, and returns errors for invalid memory or string running past valid memory. This is comprehensive and meets the burden fully.

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 extremely concise, using labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) to front-load key information. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

The description is complete for a simple read tool: it explains input (single address), behavior (null-terminated, UTF-8), output format (single line), and error cases. No output schema exists, but the description covers return value adequately.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'address' parameter, including PSP memory layout. The tool description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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 clearly states the tool reads a null-terminated UTF-8 string from PSP memory, with specific use cases like in-game text and file names. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that read raw bytes (e.g., ppsspp_read8/16/32) by its focus on string extraction.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (in-game text, character names, dialogue, file names) and mentions the termination condition (stops at first 0x00 byte). However, it lacks an explicit statement of when not to use it or which alternative tool to use for non-string data, though the sibling context implies this.

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