probe_read_registers

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation and enumerates the registers, but it does not disclose whether the target must be halted/connected or what output format is returned. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by a compact register list. No filler or repeated schema information.

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 tool is simple and the register list is complete, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return format and preconditions (probe connection, target state). It is adequate for choosing the tool but not fully complete for invoking it in a debugger workflow.

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% and the description adds no meaning for the lone probe_id parameter. The parameter name and default are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description should have clarified which probe is used and what the 'default' value means; it does not.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Read') and resource ('core registers') and enumerates the exact register set, making the tool's purpose immediately specific. This differentiates it from sibling tools like probe_read_memory, which target memory rather than registers.

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 no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention preconditions such as an active probe connection or halted core. The only usage signal is the verb 'Read', which is implied by the purpose rather than explicitly stated.

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