get_registers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It accurately labels the operation as getting values, implying read-only, and lists the specific registers. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or that it does not affect emulation state, which would be helpful.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose including the list of registers. No unnecessary 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?

The description lists all register groups returned, but there is no output schema to detail the format or structure of the returned data. Still, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, no additional parameter information is needed. The tool requires no input, and the description correctly indicates that by having no 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 clearly states the tool retrieves current CPU register values, enumerating specific registers (Z80 main+alternate, IX/IY/PC/SP/I/R, flags, interrupt mode, MEMPTR) and references ZRCP get-registers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_register or cpu_history.

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 implies usage for reading registers but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not, nor any comparison to alternatives like cpu_history or set_register. The purpose is clear but lacks contextual advice for an agent.

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