data_read_dword

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation (not destructive) and implies it reads from memory addresses, but doesn't disclose potential errors (e.g., invalid addresses), permissions needed, or rate limits. The description adds basic context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states the core purpose, second provides crucial usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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?

For a simple read operation with 100% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states purpose, provides excellent usage guidance, and the output schema will handle return values. Minor gap in behavioral transparency for error cases.

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%, with the address parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying it reads '4 byte value' and 'as a DWORD', but doesn't provide additional format or validation details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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'), resource ('4 byte value at the specified address'), and data type ('as a DWORD'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like data_read_byte, data_read_word, and data_read_qword that handle different data sizes.

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?

Explicitly provides when-not-to-use guidance: 'Only use this function if `get_global_variable_at` failed.' This directly addresses alternative selection by naming a specific sibling tool (get_global_variable_value_at_address) and specifying a clear condition for usage.

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