examine

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

Without annotations, the description relies on the GDB 'x' reference to imply the tool is read-only and non-destructive. However, it does not explicitly state that no state is modified, which would be beneficial for an agent.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, parameter descriptions, and a concrete example. The information is front-loaded and essential, though slightly verbose.

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?

While the description covers most parameters and includes an example, it omits the required session_id parameter entirely. Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not needed, but the missing session_id guidance reduces completeness.

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 provides detailed explanations and examples for address, count, fmt, and unit parameters, exceeding the schema's minimal type information. It clarifies GDB expression syntax, format characters, and unit sizes. However, the required session_id parameter is not mentioned, indicating a gap.

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 'Examine memory at an address' and references GDB's 'x' command, making the purpose and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling debugger tools like 'print' (expression evaluation) and 'disassemble' (instruction disassembly).

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 an example of usage but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'print' or 'disassemble'. It does not state prerequisites or when not to use it.

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