read_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a low burden for safety disclosure. It adds the context of 'approved target' and the 65536-byte limit, but does not explain what happens if the target is not approved or whether there are prerequisites (e.g., attach). This is some extra context but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 clear sentence of nine words, with no wasted or redundant content. It is appropriately front-loaded and easily parsed, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description leaves out critical context: what qualifies as an 'approved target', whether prior steps like attach or list_memory_regions are required, and what the return value looks like (since no output schema exists). Given the sibling tools, it is unclear how this differs from dump_memory, so the description is not complete enough for an agent to select and invoke confidently.

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 50%, with only the address parameter described in the schema. The description mentions the 65536-byte limit, which duplicates the length parameter's maximum constraint, but does not add meaningful detail about the address or length semantics beyond what the schema provides. It does not compensate for the missing length description.

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 (read) and the resource (target, implying memory given the tool name), along with the size limit of 65536 bytes. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like dump_memory or disassemble, so it lacks differentiation.

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. It mentions 'approved target' but does not explain when approval is needed or when dump_memory or other read-related tools would be more appropriate. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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