get_register

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context about chip-model specificity and the 'cited evidence' aspect of the return, but it does not disclose more about retrieval behavior or limitations beyond that.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds a necessary usage constraint in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 description covers the main purpose and the key chip/register requirement, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it is incomplete for the optional parameters and does not position the tool relative to its siblings, so an agent may not fully understand how to use query and top_k correctly.

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 carry the burden. It clarifies the role of 'chip' and 'register' implicitly, but it completely ignores the 'query' and 'top_k' parameters, leaving their purpose and interaction with the 'cited evidence' behavior unclear.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('definition and cited evidence for one STM32 register'). It clearly indicates this is about a single register, which distinguishes it from the broader search siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives a clear usage precondition: a concrete chip model is required to avoid mixing similarly named registers. However, it does not provide guidance about when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools search_stm32_docs or search_peripheral, leaving that to inference.

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