esil_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does add useful context: the tool steps instructions, returns updated registers, and reuses or creates a session based on session_id. However, it omits side effects on emulator/session state, cleanup behavior, and what happens when required inputs are missing.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result, and the second sentence covers the central session distinction. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, this is minimally adequate: it states the action, result, and the session branch. It does not describe the structure of the returned register state, prerequisites for a fresh session, or how stepping differs from esil_run and rzil_step.

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 one relationship not fully captured in the schema—session_id overriding other session context—but it does not enrich count, address, step_over, or binary_path beyond their schema text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute one or more instruction steps in the ESIL emulator' and names the observable result, updated register state. It is not a tautology and is clearly distinct from the debug and analysis tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with near-siblings like esil_run or rzil_step.

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 only usage direction is the session_id conditional ('uses a persistent session; otherwise creates a fresh session'), which tells how the tool behaves but not when to prefer it over alternatives. There is no mention of esil_run, debug_step, rzil_step, or prerequisites such as needing esil_init first.

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