rzil_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately notes the return of VM change events and updated register state and the session prerequisite. However, it does not disclose that stepping mutates the persistent session (the VM state advances), nor does it describe error conditions or event semantics in silent mode. The description is accurate but only partially 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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and output, then states the prerequisite. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential inputs, outputs, and step-count semantics. It does not detail the event structure or the session lifecycle beyond the prerequisite, but for a focused step-execution tool this is reasonably complete.

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 each parameter (count, session_id, show_events) is already documented with defaults and meanings. The description adds minimal new semantics beyond the schema, mainly framing the result as 'VM change events and updated register state.' This is adequate but not additive.

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 ('Execute'), a clear resource ('instruction steps in the Rizin RzIL emulator'), and the expected outputs ('VM change events and updated register state'). It also names the required prerequisite ('persistent session from rzil_init'), which helps position it among the RzIL sibling tools.

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 a clear prerequisite by requiring a session from rzil_init, and the phrase 'instruction steps' implies stepwise emulation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like rzil_run or rzil_trace_step, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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