Read integers from memory

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's 'Read...' clause is largely redundant with the annotation. It adds nothing about batch behavior (queries accepts an array of read requests), target/instance resolution, or failure modes for invalid addresses.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than wasteful verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents both parameters. What is missing is any mention that multiple reads can be batched in one call and any routing against sibling read tools, leaving the definition minimally viable for a simple read tool.

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 100% – ty, addr, and instance_id all carry descriptions, and the queries array/object union is documented. The description adds no format, encoding, or addressing detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read integer values from memory addresses.' That clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from a bare 'get' tautology. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like get_bytes, get_string, get_global_value, or int_convert, which an agent would need to choose between.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternative. With siblings such as get_bytes, get_string, get_global_value, and int_convert, an agent has no stated basis for picking get_int over those tools.

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