read_core_register

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

The description discloses the return format (hex string) but lacks behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., whether it requires halting the target or if it's a read-only operation). Since no annotations are provided, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 two sentences, no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and includes examples efficiently.

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 low tool complexity (single required parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return format. However, it could mention the requirement for the target to be halted, common in debug tools.

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 schema only defines 'name' as a string with no description. The description adds concrete examples of valid register names ('pc', 'sp', 'r0', 'xpsr'), providing crucial guidance beyond the schema.

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 tool reads a core register by name, providing specific examples ('pc', 'sp', 'r0', 'xpsr'). This distinguishes it from siblings like write_core_register (write) and read_memory (memory, not core 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 implies use for core registers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_memory for memory). No guidance on prerequisites like halted state or 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.