gb_decode_register_value

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does mention that it reports every bit's documented meaning and lists unknown bits separately, which is helpful, but it does not describe output format, error handling, or edge cases such as invalid register or value formats.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clarifying example and a note about unknown bits. It contains no fluff and is easily scannable.

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 moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by explaining what the output conceptually contains (documented bits, separately listed unknown bits). It does not specify the exact output structure, but for selection and basic invocation purposes it is reasonably 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with descriptive examples. The description adds context about disassembly usage but does not materially increase understanding of the register or value parameters beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: explaining what writing a byte to a register configures, with a concrete disassembly example. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing itself as 'the tool for disassembly constants' and emphasizing per-bit documented meanings.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool (decoding register writes in disassembly) and states that unknown bits are handled separately rather than guessed. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools like gb_encode_register_value or when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of fully explicit guidance.

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