data_read_word

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. While it mentions the tool reads a 2-byte WORD value, it doesn't specify what happens on invalid addresses (e.g., errors, null returns), whether it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first defines the tool's function, and the second provides critical usage guidance. There is zero wasted text, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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, read-only operation), the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It effectively covers purpose and usage guidelines, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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 address parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format examples, constraints). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Read') and resource ('2 byte value at the specified address as a WORD'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like data_read_byte, data_read_dword, etc., beyond the implied word size difference.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Only use this function if `get_global_variable_at` failed.' This clearly defines the alternative scenario and establishes a fallback usage pattern, which is excellent 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.