poke

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It mentions writing to memory but does not disclose side effects (e.g., destructiveness, irreversibility, permission requirements) or the impact on emulation state. The reference to 'ZRCP write-memory' is esoteric and may not be clear to all agents.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, but it is somewhat dense and could be slightly reorganized for clarity. However, it remains concise and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks information about side effects, expected return values, or prerequisites. Given the complexity of emulated memory access and three parameters, more context is needed to ensure correct use.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds 'space-separated bytes', aligning with the value parsing note, but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. 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?

Description explicitly states 'Write bytes to emulated memory', which clearly defines the action (write) and the resource (emulated memory). It also specifies the protocol (ZRCP) and input format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'peek' (read).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'assemble' or 'set_register'. The description implies usage for modifying emulated memory but lacks context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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