read_memory

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 states the action ('Read data') but doesn't describe what happens during execution—such as whether it requires the machine to be powered on, if it has side effects, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.

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's complexity (memory read operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, potential errors, or dependencies (e.g., machine state). For a tool interacting with system memory, more context is needed to use it effectively, especially without structured output information.

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 adds no parameter information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The schema fully documents 'address' as a hex string and 'length' with a default, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('data from C64 memory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'write_memory' and 'write_memory_binary' by specifying a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read-like tools (e.g., 'read_debug_register'), so it's not fully specific about its unique scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools like 'read_debug_register' or 'get_file_info' that might also retrieve data. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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