list_debugger_threads

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states a behavioral requirement (active debugger) but does not disclose whether the operation is safe/read-only, what happens on failure, or any performance implications. It adds minimal context beyond the pure action.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the action, the second adds a prerequisite. Every word earns its place. The information is front-loaded and immediately relevant.

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 0-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential action and a key prerequisite. It could mention the expected output format, but that is likely documented in the output schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description has no need to document parameters. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no param value, which is acceptable.

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 'List all threads in the debugged process,' using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('threads'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'switch_thread' or 'get_registers' which deal with individual threads or state.

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 includes 'Requires active debugger,' which gives a critical prerequisite. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., when the debugger is not active, use 'start_debugger' first) or mention alternatives among siblings.

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