gb_list_registers

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

The verb 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the filters are described in the input schema. It does not detail output formatting or error behavior, but for a simple listing tool the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It delivers the core purpose, filter options, and usage context in a compact, readable form.

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 list operation with optional filters, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit return format and does not state whether start/end bounds are inclusive, but those are minor gaps given the simple nature of the tool and the schema descriptions provided.

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 descriptions already cover all parameters, including allowed values for group and model. The description adds useful conceptual grouping by mentioning model, group, and address-range filters, though it does not specify how filters combine.

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 function: listing hardware registers with optional filters by model, group, or address range. It also distinguishes this tool from gb_lookup_register by framing it as a survey operation.

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 gives a concrete usage scenario: survey a subsystem before drilling into a specific register with gb_lookup_register. It does not explicitly list non-use cases, but the guidance is enough to select this tool over the sibling lookup tool.

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