info_registers

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

As a read-only operation, the description adequately conveys the behavior. It explains parameter effects but doesn't detail output format; however, the output schema is provided, so this is acceptable.

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 no wasted words. The first line states the purpose, and the second details the parameter. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention that all registers are shown by default, but that is implied by 'omit for all'.

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?

The description adds meaning for the 'register' parameter (optional, specific name or omit for all), but the required 'session_id' parameter is not explained. With 0% schema coverage, more parameter context was expected.

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 shows CPU register values and references the GDB command 'info registers'. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'print' and 'disassemble' by focusing on registers.

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 explains when to use the optional 'register' parameter (specific name or omit for all). It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is for register inspection.

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