pwndbg_cpsr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool decodes the register into flag bits and that cpsr_value defaults to reading the register, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections for source, category, architecture, and args. It is slightly verbose due to metadata and a link, but each sentence adds value. Could be more concise by removing the link.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, architecture constraints, and parameters. It lacks mention of error cases or the need for a valid ARM/AArch64 session, but overall is fairly complete.

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%, but the description explains both parameters: session_id as UUID, cpsr_value as optional with default from register. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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?

Description clearly states the tool displays ARM CPSR/xPSR/PSTATE register bits and decodes them into human-readable flag bits. The verb 'Display' and resource 'register bits' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from general register display by focusing on condition flags.

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?

Description explicitly limits usage to ARM and AArch64 architectures, indicating when the tool is applicable. However, it does not mention alternative tools (e.g., pwndbg_info_registers) 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.