dbgprobe.svd.read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains return values for registers vs fields, but does not disclose whether the operation is safe (read-only), requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The behavior is transparent in terms of output but lacks safety cues.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently explains behavior for registers and fields. No extraneous 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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input-output relationship well. It explains return types based on target format. Missing error cases or session_id context, but overall sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 coverage is 50%: target has a description, session_id does not. The description adds examples and clarifies how the target parameter drives output types, which adds value beyond the schema. However, session_id remains undocumented, leaving its purpose ambiguous.

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 reads registers or fields by name and specifies different return types for each. It distinguishes between registers (returns raw value and all fields) and fields (returns value and enum name), which helps differentiate from sibling svd tools that list or describe, but does not explicitly compare.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dbgprobe.svd.describe or dbgprobe.svd.list_fields. It describes behavior for different inputs but lacks context on prerequisites or when to avoid use.

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