analyze-memory-dump

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: 'bounded' suggests limits, 'real Volatility analysis' clarifies it is genuine analysis, 'Returns plugin-level failures honestly' discloses error handling, and 'malfind hits require analyst review' alerts the user to follow-up needed.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver all essential information with no filler. Key points are front-loaded: what it does, where it operates, and notable behaviors (honest failures, analyst review).

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema) and good annotations, the description covers the essential context: scope, location, behavior on failures, and analyst involvement. It does not describe the return format, but the absence of an output schema may make that less critical.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the parameter (filePath) with its own description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces 'Windows memory dump' and 'evidence root', which slightly supplements the schema, but does not add new semantic details beyond what is already provided.

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 a specific action ('Perform bounded, real Volatility analysis') on a specific resource ('Windows memory dump inside the evidence root'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on memory dump analysis rather than metadata or string extraction.

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 provides clear context: it applies to Windows memory dumps within the evidence root. It also hints at suitable scenarios by noting that failures are returned honestly and malfind hits require analyst review. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state 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.