dosbox_search_memory

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it states the exact memory region searched, that every hit is reported, and the output form as segment:offset. There are no hidden side effects or contradictions.

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?

Three compact sentences each carry functional weight: the operation and result, the motivating scenario, and the input modes. No padding or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The description gives enough context about how to call the tool, what it returns, and why it matters in the profiling workflow. The main omission is guidance on pid/limit, but since zero parameters are required, defaults plus the schema cover most invocation scenarios.

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?

The description explains the key text-versus-hex choice and suggests raw bytes, while the schema describes text as latin-1. However, pid and limit are not documented anywhere, and with 50% schema coverage the description should have compensated a bit more for those two unexplained parameters.

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 a specific operation: searching the guest's 640 KiB conventional memory for a byte pattern and reporting each hit as a guest segment:offset. This distinguishes it from read/dump siblings by making both the resource and the hit-reporting behavior explicit.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: converting a known game string or message into the segment where it lives, as the first step in profiling. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5, but the context is clearly conveyed.

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