pyocd_memory_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'Returns hex value' but omits crucial details: whether the read is destructive, if the target must be halted, error handling, or the exact format of the return value. This is insufficient for a safe and correct invocation.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose, but it lacks some necessary details that would make it more informative without bloating.

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 and the existence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description still falls short. It does not explain the return format, what constitutes a valid address, or any dependencies on the target state, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%, meaning both parameters (address and size) are described in the schema. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 that the tool reads memory at a given address and returns a hex value. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool pyocd_memory_dump, which also reads memory but likely in a different format or scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like pyocd_memory_dump or pyocd_memory_write. The description provides no context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active session) or exclusions.

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