get_registers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical prerequisite (debugger must be active and suspended) and implies read-only behavior. However, it does not describe potential failure modes (e.g., what happens if debugger is not active) or any side effects beyond the read operation.

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?

A single, dense sentence that conveys the purpose and a key prerequisite without any filler words. Every word earns 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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, single purpose) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the core function and the essential condition for use, though it could mention error handling when preconditions are unmet.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (no properties), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no redundant parameter information.

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 the resource ('all CPU register values'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like read_debug_memory and get_stack_trace by focusing specifically on registers.

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 specifies the required preconditions ('debugger active and suspended'), which gives implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like read_debug_memory or get_stack_trace, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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