mem_imageinfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It describes the operation as a KDBG scan that returns a profile, which implies a read-only, non-destructive action. While it does not detail potential errors or side effects, the simplicity of the tool and the context make this sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, one output) and the description covers purpose and usage. However, the parameter documentation gap and lack of detail on the return value (though output schema exists) leave some incompleteness. The sibling context helps differentiate it.

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%, so the description must explain the 'image' parameter. However, it only says 'memory image' without specifying what format or path is expected (e.g., file path, URL, identifier). This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 detects a Volatility 2 profile for a memory image via KDBG scan. It specifies the verb 'Detect' and the resource 'profile for a memory image', and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's used when Volatility 3 tools fail (older or 32-bit images). Also links to mem_vol2 as the consumer.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when Volatility 3 fails to auto-resolve a profile, especially for older or 32-bit images. This provides clear context, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond Volatility 3.

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