Dbg Thread Regs

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

With no annotations present, the description usefully discloses a behavioral trait beyond the schema: it temporarily selects each thread and restores state, warning of side effects. It does not, however, mention auth/session requirements or rate limits, so it falls short of full disclosure for a no-annotation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical clarifying the side effect. 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?

For a 4-param debug tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits session prerequisites and how results are organized per thread, which are relevant given the multi-thread scope of the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents thread_ids, names, timeout, and instance_id thoroughly. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read registers of debug threads) clearly. However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling dbg_regs, leaving ambiguity about which tool handles the current thread's registers versus per-thread register reads.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of dbg_regs, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must be in a debug session). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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