read_memory_bytes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the fallback usage but doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as what happens on invalid addresses, error handling, performance implications, or the format of returned data. For a low-level memory read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that directly address purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a low-level memory read operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, and return format, which are critical for safe and effective use. The usage guidance is strong, but other aspects are under-specified for this context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (memory_address and size) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as address format or size constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'bytes at a given address', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., data_read_byte, data_read_word, etc.) beyond the general 'bytes' vs. specific data types, leaving some ambiguity in sibling 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 explicit usage guidelines by stating 'Only use this function if `get_global_variable_at` and `get_global_variable_by_name` both failed.' This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives, including specific sibling tools to try first, offering strong guidance for the agent.

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