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 clearly describes the read operation but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like error conditions (e.g., invalid addresses, memory access permissions), performance characteristics, or what happens when reading unmapped memory. The description adds value by specifying the fallback condition but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 efficient with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete about purpose and usage context. However, it lacks information about return values (what format the QWORD is returned in), error handling, and memory access constraints. Given the low complexity but absence of output schema, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 fully documents the single 'address' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., address format, valid ranges, or examples). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 resource ('8 byte value at the specified address'), and the data type ('as a QWORD'). It precisely distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like data_read_byte, data_read_word, and data_read_dword by specifying the 8-byte QWORD operation.

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 when NOT to use this tool ('Only use this function if `get_global_variable_at` failed'), naming a specific alternative and establishing a clear fallback relationship. This gives the agent precise guidance on tool selection.

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