write_variable

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses prerequisites and a recommendation for consistency, but does not discuss side effects, error handling, or reversibility. Adequate but could be more detailed.

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 concise with three clear sentences plus Args/Returns sections. No unnecessary words, though the Returns is vague ('写入结果'). Structure is good overall.

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 no annotations and the tool's write nature, the description covers prerequisites and a safety recommendation. It does not detail error handling or return structure, but an output schema exists. Reasonably complete but with 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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides examples for 'name' and explains auto-conversion for 'value', adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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: '按变量名修改全局变量的值' (modify global variable value by name). It distinguishes from siblings like read_variable, write_memory, and write_register by focusing on global variables.

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 prerequisites (call load_elf() and connect() first) and a recommendation to pause the target for consistency. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear.

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