scan_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only states the action and protection filter but omits behavioral traits such as whether the scan is read-only, if it modifies state, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a memory scanning tool.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it prioritizes brevity over completeness. It misses critical details that could be added without significant length.

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 memory scanning (three parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema presumably present), the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain return format, range selection, 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond param titles. 'pattern' is not explained (e.g., format like hex string or AOB byte sequence), 'protection' is described only as 'given protection' without clarifying possible values, and 'session_id' lacks context for identification.

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 ('scan') and the resource ('ranges' in memory), and uses 'AOB/pattern' to indicate a specific type of scan. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_memory or write_memory, as no other scanning tool is listed.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_memory). The description does not mention prerequisites, preferred contexts, or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.

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