debug_registers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about failure modes (no session, no stopped thread), permissions, or return shape. The phrase 'last stopped thread' is the only behavioral signal and it is left unexplained.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. Structurally ideal for a narrow read tool.

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 one-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should at least sketch the return content or the session requirements. As written, an agent still has unanswered questions about preconditions and output.

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 one required parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but never mentions session_id or what value it expects. The lone param is undocumented in both structured data and prose.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a precise resource ('x64 general-purpose registers of the last stopped thread'), which is far better than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling debug_state, which plausibly also exposes register state, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no naming of alternatives (debug_state, debug_read_memory, debug_dump), and no prerequisites beyond the implicit 'last stopped thread' hint. An agent gets no routing help for choosing this over related debug reads.

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