List all predefined memory dump regions in the emulated PS2 environment for inspection and debugging.
List predefined dump regions.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_memory_regions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (list) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or performance implications. For a simple list operation, minimal disclosure is acceptable, but it lacks even a hint of safety or idempotency.
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 a single, clear sentence with no redundancy. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify what the output looks like (e.g., list of region names or identifiers), leaving the agent to guess the return format. Additional context would improve 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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. Per the rubric, 0 parameters establishes a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable since none exist.
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 'List predefined dump regions' uses the specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'predefined dump regions'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dump_region' (which dumps) and 'dump_memory' (more general), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 context—likely before dumping a region—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dump_region' or 'read_memory'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.