read_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds some context by noting the bytes are 'static' from the image and that values get qword interpretation and pointer-like names, but it omits error behavior, permissions, and whether unmapped or invalid addresses are handled safely.

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 single sentence is short but under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions. It is not front-loaded with a clear action verb, and its brevity leaves critical details unaddressed.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must be more complete. It does not explain how to call the tool, what addr/size/build mean, or what the return structure contains beyond a vague mention of qword and pointer names.

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 explain the three parameters, but it mentions none of them. The addr, size, and build parameters receive no semantic detail beyond their names and defaults.

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 says it returns static bytes from the image and interprets qword/pointer-looking values, which gives a vague sense of the resource. However, it does not explicitly state that it reads memory at a given address, and it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like disassemble or find.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as disassemble, find, or function_info. The description offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions.

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