esil_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the stopping conditions and the session reuse/fresh-session behavior, which goes beyond the schema. It does not mention side effects on the persistent session or error/return behavior, but the core execution behavior is transparent.

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 tightly written sentences. The primary behavior and termination conditions are front-loaded, and the session rule is stated without wasted words.

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 6-parameter emulation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core execution semantics but omits return value behavior, how breakpoints interact with the session, and an explicit distinction from rzil_run. The rich schema and sibling context help, but some important operational context is still missing.

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?

The input schema already documents all 6 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces session_id semantics and stopping conditions but adds no new format or relationship details beyond what the schema already states.

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 action ('Run ESIL emulation'), the resource, and the exact termination conditions (target address, breakpoint, max steps). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like esil_step (single-step) and esil_init (session setup), so an agent can tell what this tool does.

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 explicit session guidance: use a persistent session when session_id is provided, otherwise create a fresh session. It does not explicitly compare against rzil_run or esil_step, but the context is clear enough for basic tool selection among the emulation siblings.

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