write_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. It states the write action but provides no details on behavioral traits such as potential side effects (e.g., memory corruption), required target state (e.g., halted), or permission needs. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic operation.

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 concise with clear sections (Args, Returns) and no extraneous content. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 presence of an output schema, the vague return description ('写入结果') is acceptable, but the description lacks important context such as prerequisites (e.g., target must be halted) or error conditions. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a write operation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by detailing parameter formats: address as hex string, data lists varying by width, and width enumeration (8/16/32). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 ('向目标内存写入数据', write data to target memory) and resource (memory). It distinguishes from siblings like read_memory, write_register, and write_variable, making the tool's specific 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 for writing to raw memory but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_register or write_variable. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites (e.g., need to halt target) are mentioned.

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