pyocd_register_read_all

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 states a read operation but does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., target must be halted) or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks detail about state requirements or potential impacts.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that convey the essential purpose and usefulness. There is no redundant information, and every word serves a purpose.

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 the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return values) and the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter), the description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand its function. It could mention required session state but is otherwise adequate.

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 100% as the only parameter ('include_fpu') is described in the schema with default and description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter semantics.

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 action ('Read all CPU core registers at once') and the resource ('all CPU core registers'), differentiating it effectively from the sibling tool 'pyocd_register_read' which reads a single register. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions that the tool is 'useful for getting full CPU state', which implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'pyocd_register_read' for individual registers) or when not to use it. It provides minimal guidance on context.

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