read_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior - hex-formatted output and a 16 MB size ceiling - but says nothing about failure modes, such as an unreadable or invalid address, or whether an open session/process is required.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose, then a compact purpose list, then an Args block. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema this covers the essentials (format, limit, use cases). It is missing the preconditions that matter for a process-memory reader - whether a session or opened process is required - and any hint about error behavior on partial reads.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning and it largely does: address is a hex string with a concrete example ("0x1a2b3c4d"), and size is a byte count capped at 16 MB. Only the default value (16) is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read game process memory) plus the return encoding (hex). This is enough to separate it from write_memory and eval_script, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, read_field_value.

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?

Lists three concrete use cases (verifying field offsets, reading raw object bytes, observing memory changes), which gives a clear context for invocation. It stops short of exclusions or naming an alternative (e.g. use read_field_value when the type is known), so it falls one notch below full marks.

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