dbg_gpregs_remote

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

No annotations are present, so the description fully shoulders transparency. It fails to disclose behavioral aspects such as side effects, permissions required, output format (despite output schema existing), or any state dependencies. Minimal disclosure for a debugging tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While it is concise, it might be overly brief for a debug tool; however, it earns its place by clearly stating the core purpose.

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 has an output schema, so describing return values is unnecessary. However, the description omits important context such as its 'remote' nature (implied by name), prerequisites like a valid debugging session, or typical usage scenarios. Adequate but with gaps.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds 'for specified thread IDs' which reinforces the 'tids' parameter but offers no new semantics beyond the schema. 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 action 'Get', the resource 'general-purpose registers', and the scope 'for specified thread IDs'. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'dbg_gpregs' (presumably non-remote) and register-specific tools.

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 implies usage for retrieving general-purpose registers but does not explicitly guide when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'dbg_gpregs', 'dbg_regs_named_remote'). No exclusions or context differentiation provided.

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