edb_get_string

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) already signal no destructive side effects. The description adds that it reads a null-terminated string but does not disclose potential errors, permissions, or edge cases. It adds minimal context beyond annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus bulleted parameters. No redundant text, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema (returns string), the description doesn't need to detail returns. It explains the null-terminated interpretation. Missing: error handling (invalid addresses, non-null-terminated strings) and that it reads from target process memory, but overall sufficient for a focused tool.

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 description adds example address format and max_length range (1-4096, default 256) beyond schema's own descriptions. With schema coverage at 0% per context, this compensation is valuable, though it could include more detail on parameter behavior.

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 a null-terminated string from a memory address' and explains it interprets memory as a C string. This distinguishes it from siblings like edb_read_memory (raw bytes) and edb_read_memory_as (typed read).

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 implies usage for reading C strings but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use. No exclusion criteria or when-to-use guidance is provided.

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