dump_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'does not write files'. The added value is the base64 return format and the byte cap, which helps the agent anticipate output size and encoding. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

A single sentence with two clauses, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place; the redundant 'does not write files' is brief and reinforces the safety profile without bloating the description.

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 no output schema, the description specifies the return format as base64 and includes the byte cap, covering the essential behavior. It does not mention error handling or interaction with mapped memory regions, but that can be inferred from sibling tools like list_memory_regions. Overall reasonably complete for a simple dump operation.

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 covers address with a clear description, but length lacks any schema-level explanation. The description's 'at most 1048576 bytes' implies length corresponds to the number of bytes and enforces the cap, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's min/max. However, it does not explicitly state 'length is the number of bytes to dump', leaving a small interpretive gap.

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 (return), the resource (memory dump), and key constraints (base64, max 1048576 bytes). It distinguishes itself from file-writing and patch tools, and the specific output format and size limit set it apart from a generic read_memory operation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools like read_memory, nor does it state ideal scenarios, exclusions, or selection criteria beyond the byte limit and read-only behavior. The usage context is largely implied by the name and description.

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