LLDB_INFO_REGISTERS

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, output format, or required process state. It merely states 'Display registers' without any such details, leaving agents uninformed.

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 extremely concise (two words), which is efficient but sacrifices necessary detail. It lacks structure such as a brief explanation of behavior or return, making it minimally adequate.

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 low complexity, no output schema, and only 2 parameters, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not specify what happens when called (e.g., all registers vs. a specific one, or any side effects).

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the purpose or constraints of the optional 'register' parameter.

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 'Display registers' clearly states the verb (display) and resource (registers), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like LLDB_FRAME_INFO, which focuses on frame context rather than a register dump.

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?

No guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as LLDB_FRAME_INFO or LLDB_EXAMINE. The description offers no context about prerequisites or typical workflow integration.

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