Read struct fields at an address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the auto-detection behavior, which is genuinely useful context for the struct field, but says nothing about failure modes when a type cannot be detected or how addresses are resolved. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 clause with zero waste. It is arguably too terse for a required parameter whose structure is undocumented, but nothing is redundant.

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 needn't be explained, and the read-safety profile is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'queries' parameter (required, anyOf array-or-object), which the description does not address at all.

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 coverage is 50%, and the required 'queries' parameter has an empty schema description despite an anyOf accepting either an array of {addr, struct} objects or a single object. The description implies the addr and optional struct semantics ('auto-detect type when possible') but does not explain the batch/single duality, so it only partially compensates.

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 struct fields from memory at address') and distinguishes itself from primitive readers like get_int/get_string through the 'struct' framing. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the many sibling read tools (get_bytes, get_global_value, type_inspect), so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 only usage signal is 'auto-detect type when possible', which addresses the optional struct name but not when to choose this tool over get_bytes, get_int, or type_inspect. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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