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. It states the tool reads memory (implied safe operation) but doesn't disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the address is invalid. The description adds some context about the fallback usage but lacks behavioral details like memory access permissions or return format.

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 just two sentences, both of which earn their place: the first defines the tool's purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. There is zero wasted text, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage guidelines well but lacks details about return values or error handling, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. The sibling tool context is adequately addressed through the explicit alternative reference.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 ('2 byte value at the specified address'), and data type ('as a WORD'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like data_read_byte, data_read_dword, and data_read_qword which 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?

The description explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Only use this function if `get_global_variable_at` failed.' This gives clear when-to-use criteria and references a specific alternative tool, helping the agent choose between this and sibling tools.

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