frida_read_memory

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the size cap (64KB), return format (hex dump), and address format. It does not cover error handling, but is otherwise transparent.

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 short, front-loaded, and efficiently conveys purpose, parameter details, and return value. No extraneous content.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and output schema, the description covers key aspects: action, parameter formats, size limit, and return. Missing clarification on 'target' and prerequisites, but adequate for a simple read tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description explains 'address' (hex string example) and 'size' (bytes capped at 64KB). However, 'target' is not explained, leaving ambiguity about its meaning (process name, PID, etc.).

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 'Read raw memory from a target process,' specifying the action (read) and resource (raw memory). It is distinct from sibling tools like frida_write_memory (write) and frida_memory_scan (scan).

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 implies use for reading raw memory at a specific address, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use over alternatives like frida_memory_dump_regions. However, the clarity is sufficient.

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