Read all register values or a specific register from a debugged process to inspect CPU state during debugging.
Read all register values or a specific register from the debugged process.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Debug session ID | |
| register_name | No | Specific register to read (e.g. "rax", "eip"). If omitted, returns all registers. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Read' makes the non-mutating nature clear and the all-or-specific behavior is disclosed. However, it does not mention active-session requirements, process-pause expectations, or error behavior. 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?
A single front-loaded sentence that puts the verb first, states the main behavior, then adds the optional narrowing and scope. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers what is read and from where, and the schema covers parameter semantics. It does not describe return formatting or edge cases, but those are less critical for a register read tool.
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%: session_id and register_name are already documented. The description adds only the 'all or specific' framing, which reinforces the schema's 'If omitted, returns all registers' note but provides no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific operation ('Read'), a resource ('register values'), a scope ('from the debugged process'), and the all-or-specific behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from debug_set_register (write operation) and from emulation-based register readers like esil_get_registers and rzil_get_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 phrase 'from the debugged process' provides clear context for selecting this tool over emulation-focused siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.