read_memory_bytes

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. It mentions the tool reads bytes but does not specify permissions required, potential side effects (e.g., if reading protected memory causes errors), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with memory, which could be risky or complex.

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 very concise with only two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: the first states the tool's function, and the second provides usage guidelines. There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded with essential information.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a memory-reading tool with no annotations, the description lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or error conditions. The usage guidelines are strong, but overall completeness is moderate due to missing behavioral context.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('memory_address' and 'size') adequately. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format details for 'memory_address' (e.g., hexadecimal) or constraints on 'size' (e.g., maximum bytes).

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('bytes at a given address'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'data_read_byte', 'data_read_dword', etc., which appear to perform similar memory reading operations but with different data types or scopes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Only use this function if `get_global_variable_at` and `get_global_variable_by_name` both failed.' This clearly defines the context and alternatives, helping the agent choose appropriately among sibling tools.

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