re_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read memory' and lists operation signatures; it does not describe return formats, side effects (e.g., that it is strictly read-only), error handling, or permission requirements.

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 dense sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with 'Read memory'. However, the long list of operations in one line is less scannable than a structured list, though it remains appropriately concise overall.

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?

For a tool with 16 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides compact signatures for all nine operations and the supported types. However, it does not describe the shape or format of returned data (e.g., how bytes or values are formatted), nor does it address error cases, leaving the agent to infer behavior from operation names.

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 schema already documents all 16 parameters with 100% coverage, but the description adds meaning by mapping each operation to the parameters it accepts (e.g., 'ptr_chain {base,offsets[],final_type?}', 'values {address,type,count?}') and marking optionality with '?'. This op-to-parameter mapping is not present in the schema itself.

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 opens with 'Read memory', a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the distinct read operations (bytes, values, string, ptr_chain, etc.). This makes the tool's scope unmistakable and differentiates it from sibling tools like re_write, re_disasm, or re_scan.

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?

Usage is implied from the operation list and the phrase 'Read memory', but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus siblings like re_scan or re_disasm. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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