read_registers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes reading registers and the return format, but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, potential side effects, or performance implications. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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 with exactly one line for the purpose, followed by parameter documentation and a return description. No superfluous words, every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the tool's functionality well given the presence of an output schema. It explains parameters and return type. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus the singular 'read_register' sibling, which would enhance completeness.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that 'names' is a list of register names and that empty/None reads all, and 'core' is a filter for specific units. The schema only provides types and defaults, so the description is essential for correct use.

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 'Read multiple CPU registers', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'read_register' (singular) and 'write_register'.

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 explains when to use the tool (reading multiple registers, with optional filtering by name and core), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'read_register' for single registers or 'get_register_view' for a graphical view. Usage context is clear but missing direct exclusions.

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