esil_get_registers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that a fresh session may be created and that a persistent session is used when session_id is provided, which is useful. However, it does not mention that setting address modifies the program counter, nor does it describe any session lifecycle or cleanup behavior, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and follows with the session-mode behavior. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a getter with 100% schema coverage, the description plus schema provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: what it reads, how session_id changes behavior, and the required binary_path when no session exists. It lacks explicit return format and ignores the address-as-PC effect, but these are secondary given the schema already documents the address parameter.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of context around session_id versus fresh session creation, but it does not meaningfully add semantic value beyond what the schema already documents for the parameters.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Read all register values or a specific register from the ESIL virtual machine state.' The ESIL scope clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like debug_get_registers and rzil_get_registers, and the all-or-specific distinction makes the tool's 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 gives clear context on when to use a persistent session versus a fresh one: 'If session_id is provided, uses a persistent session; otherwise creates a fresh session.' This helps an agent choose the right invocation path, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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