rzil_get_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does signal read-only intent and the session-lifecycle requirement, but it does not describe error behavior for invalid sessions or addresses, nor does it disclose any output semantics beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 two sentences with no filler: the primary action is stated first, and the critical prerequisite is second. Every word adds useful information, and it is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 schema covers all parameter semantics, and the description covers the tool's purpose and main prerequisite. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still has to infer return shape and failure behavior, making the definition adequate but not fully complete.

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 the schema already documents all parameters including address format, size bounds, defaults, and format enum. The description adds only the persistent-session context and does not need to explain parameter syntax further.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the exact resource: 'memory contents from the Rizin RzIL emulated memory space' at a given address. This clearly distinguishes it from ESIL-based memory access and debug-memory reads without needing to inspect 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?

The description states an explicit precondition: 'Requires a persistent session from rzil_init', which tells the agent to initialize RzIL first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the RzIL emulated-memory framing gives a clear context for when this tool applies.

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