get_debug_registers

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

The description only says 'Return', implying a read-only operation, but provides no further behavioral details. Without annotations, the agent is left uninformed about side effects, authorization requirements, or error handling.

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 short (one sentence), which achieves conciseness but loses important information. It is not structured to front-load critical details or organize content effectively.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what debug registers are, what the parameters do, or what the return value looks like, leaving the agent with inadequate context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain the parameters 'target' and 'category'. This adds no semantic value beyond the schema's structural definition.

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 returns 'full-width PCSX2 debug registers', specifying the resource and action. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_registers', which likely returns standard registers, leaving ambiguity about the distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_registers' or 'write_debug_register'. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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