data_read_qword

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 describes the core behavior (reading 8 bytes from an address) but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or memory safety. It adds some context by mentioning the fallback to `get_global_variable_at`, but more behavioral traits would be helpful.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured, with every sentence earning its place.

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 (one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage context well, but as a low-level memory read operation without annotations, more behavioral details (e.g., error conditions) would enhance completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'address' parameter. The description implies the address is for reading 8 bytes but doesn't add format or validation details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 the 8 byte value') and resource ('at the specified address as a QWORD'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like data_read_byte, data_read_dword, and data_read_word by specifying the 8-byte QWORD data type.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Only use this function if `get_global_variable_at` failed'), naming a specific alternative and establishing a clear fallback context, which helps differentiate it from other read operations.

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