read_register

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

Without annotations, the description adequately implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions needed, or the lack thereof. The description is minimally sufficient but lacks detail.

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 a single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. Every word is necessary and informative.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's purpose and input. Minor gaps include no mention of error handling or register validation, but these are not critical for such a 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%, and the description confirms the parameter 'register' is a name with examples. It adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 specific CPU register by name, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_memory' and 'read_registers' which operate on different targets.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'read_registers' reads all registers, nor does it note any prerequisites or context requirements.

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