memory_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the output representation ('Returns byte values as decimal numbers') and accepted address formats. 'Reads' implies a non-mutating operation, and the description gives enough behavioral context for a read primitive, though it does not discuss error cases or limits.

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 sentences with no filler. The first states purpose, the second states the required parameter combination, and the third covers address formats and return representation. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, this description is complete. It provides all invocation-critical details: which parameters to use, how addresses may be formatted, and what the response represents. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the required combination of start_address with exactly one of data_length or end_address. It repeats the hex-format information already present in the schema, and the hex-string wording mildly conflicts with the integer schema types, preventing a higher score.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Reads a memory chunk.' It clearly defines the tool's action, distinguishes it from memory_write, and reinforces intent by stating the output is byte values. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 gives clear invocation guidance: 'Specify start_address and either data_length or end_address.' This clarifies the required parameter relationship, which is not enforced by the schema. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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