get_struct_at_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the address or structure name is invalid, whether memory is accessed, or what format the returned values take. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably reads memory or analysis data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and follows a clear subject-verb-object structure.

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 tool that presumably reads memory or analysis data at an address (with no output schema and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'structure field values' means in practice, what format they're returned in, whether this is a memory read operation or analysis of existing data, or what happens with invalid inputs. Given the complexity implied by the tool name and the lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions 'address' and 'structure' but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships, valid formats, or usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Get structure field values') and target ('at a specific address'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'get_struct_info_simple' or 'analyze_struct_detailed', which might provide similar or overlapping functionality with structures.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple structure-related tools in the sibling list (get_struct_info_simple, analyze_struct_detailed, search_structures), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it's the appropriate choice.

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