Read raw bytes from Java .class files as hex dumps to inspect byte-level structure, with offset and length controls for modding or debugging.
Read raw bytes from a .class file as hex dump.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| length | No | Bytes to read (default 256) | |
| offset | No | Start offset (default 0) | |
| class_path | Yes | Path to file | |
| session_id | Yes | Session ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only nature implicitly ('Read') and the output form ('hex dump'), which is useful, but says nothing about size limits, session requirements, or how the dump is structured.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it is arguably too terse to earn a 5.
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 simple read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys the operation and output form. It omits session/offset semantics and any return-shape detail, which leaves gaps an agent would otherwise need to guess.
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 offset, length, class_path, and session_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?
States a specific verb (Read), resource (raw bytes from a .class file), and output form (hex dump). It is clearer than a bare name, but does not differentiate itself from close siblings like hex_read, jar_read_file, or jar_read_class, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. requiring an open session), and no routing to alternatives such as hex_read or jar_read_file. The agent must infer usage entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.