rzil_get_registers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is a read, describes the return shape (typed values, individual flags as booleans), and notes the optionality of register_name. This is sufficient for a non-destructive getter tool, though it does not discuss error behavior or pagination.

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 sentences with no filler. The main function is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds meaningful differentiation from ESIL. Every word contributes to the agent's ability to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 read-only tool with a complete input schema, the description provides enough context about the operation and return values. It explains the key behavioral distinction (flags as booleans) and the optional register_name behavior, so nothing critical is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters well. The description adds marginal semantic value by mentioning typed values and flag booleans, but the core parameter meaning is already fully covered in the input schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('all register values or a specific register from the Rizin RzIL VM'). It also differentiates from ESIL by highlighting typed values and individual boolean flags, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like esil_get_registers without opening the schema.

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 for when to prefer RzIL over ESIL: it returns typed values and individual flags as booleans, whereas ESIL packs flags into a single register. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative siblings like debug_get_registers, but the RzIL-specific framing provides adequate guidance.

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