data_read_byte

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 mentions the tool reads a byte value, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions required, rate limits, or what happens if the address is invalid. 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that each earn their place: the first defines the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. There is no wasted text, making it efficient for an 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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage guidelines well. However, the lack of annotations and minimal behavioral transparency slightly reduces completeness, as agents might need more context on error cases or constraints.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'address' well-documented in the schema as 'Address to get 1 byte value from'. The description adds minimal semantics beyond this, only reinforcing the address usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Read') and resource ('1 byte value at the specified address'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like data_read_dword, data_read_qword, data_read_string, and data_read_word which handle different data sizes/types. It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by stating 'Only use this function if `get_global_variable_at` failed.' This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus an alternative (get_global_variable_at), including a specific exclusion rule, which is ideal for agent decision-making.

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