dbg_regs_named

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only repeats the basic action. It fails to mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the schema.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could include a slightly broader context (e.g., 'for debugging') without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity, the description is adequate but not fully complete. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, there is no mention of how registers are selected (e.g., case sensitivity, aliases) or the thread context, which might improve completeness slightly.

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% for the two parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning and format. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'register_names' and 'instance_id' are already described). Baseline of 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 'Get selected registers for the current thread', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'dbg_gpregs' (which likely gets general-purpose registers) and 'dbg_regs_named_remote' (remote counterpart), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'dbg_gpregs' or 'dbg_regs_named_remote'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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