dump_memory

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

The description lacks details on side effects, such as whether the file is overwritten, what format is used, or whether permissions are required. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but incomplete, earning an average score for conciseness.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not explain return values or outcomes. The tool writes to a file (potentially destructive), but no warnings or behavioral context are given. Lacks completeness for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description adds nothing about the parameters (length, target, address, file_path) beyond the basic action. Parameters like 'target' and 'address' remain unexplained.

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 (dump), resource (guest memory), and outcome (local file). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_memory' or 'dump_region', which may have similar purposes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_memory' or 'dump_region'. No when-not or context is given.

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