read_memory

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

Despite no annotations, the description only mentions reading from a 'live process' and that the address is a hex string. It fails to disclose potential impacts (e.g., safety, error behavior, permission requirements) or the need for an active session.

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 concise (12 words) but at the expense of crucial information. It is under-informative rather than efficiently complete.

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 three required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain session context, address format (e.g., 0x prefix), size limits, return values, or error conditions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value: it notes 'address' as hex string and 'size' implicitly, but completely omits explanation of the required 'session_id' parameter.

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 'Read `size` bytes at `address` (hex string) from the live process,' specifying the action (read), resource (memory of live process), and key parameters. This sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'write_memory' or 'scan_memory'.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., attaching to a session) or context for effective use.

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