edb_get_memory_map

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it shows memory map details but does not disclose any unexpected behaviors (e.g., potential stops or state changes). With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.

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 and well-structured: one sentence for the analogy, one for the content, and one for the return type. There is no redundancy, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool has no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema (implied), the description sufficiently covers the purpose and output. However, it could briefly mention that it reads from the target process memory or that it is non-intrusive, but overall it is adequate.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description explains the output format, which is the primary semantic need. For zero-parameter tools, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds value by clarifying the return value beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves the process memory map, analogous to /proc/pid/maps, and enumerates the contents (address ranges, permissions, offset, paths). It is distinct from sibling tools like edb_read_memory or edb_get_memory_region_info due to its focus on the full mapped region overview.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for inspecting memory layout but lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings like edb_get_memory_region_info. The context is inferred but not directive.

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