get_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. It clearly indicates a read-only operation, lists the register sets returned, and the prerequisite paused session. It does not mention side effects, but for a read operation this is transparent enough. Could explicitly state it does not modify state.

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 very concise: two sentences plus an architecture-specific list. Every sentence adds essential information (action, prerequisite, registers). No fluff or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (register names) and the prerequisite. It does not cover error conditions (e.g., what if session is not paused) but covers the main use case well. Minor gap in error handling, but overall complete for a read tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing specific register names for each architecture and explaining the inclusion of segment/debug registers, which goes beyond the schema's boolean descriptions. This helps the agent understand what optional parameters affect.

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 it reads CPU register values of the active thread, lists specific register sets (general-purpose, RIP/EIP, flags, optional segments and debug registers), and distinguishes between x64 and x86 architectures. This specificity separates it from sibling tools like set_register or read_memory.

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?

It explicitly requires the session to be paused, with a pointer to check via get_status. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusion conditions, the requirement is clear and directly informs the agent of a critical precondition.

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