mem_search

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description usefully adds the little-endian interpretation and the return type (physical addresses), which goes slightly beyond the annotations, but says nothing about cost, result limits, or behavior on a very large range.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core action is stated first, followed by return value and the width/endianness qualifier.

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 read-only scan tool there is no output schema, and the description does state the return shape (matching physical addresses). Only minor gaps remain, such as how matches are ordered or whether the range size is bounded.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (start, end, value, width) are already documented in the schema. The description restates width values and adds endianness, but contributes little the schema does not already carry. 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 ('Scan') and resource ('guest memory'), plus what it returns ('matching physical addresses'). It is distinguishable from mem_read/mem_write, though it never names those siblings explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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 description (searching memory for a value), but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over mem_read, mem_write, or dos_memory_map. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given.

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