switch_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It correctly states the primary behavior (switching active thread) but omits important behavioral details: what happens if the thread ID is invalid, whether the debugger must already be started, or any side effects (e.g., changes to register view). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action, the second provides the parameter source. The structure is front-loaded and every word earns its place. Ideal for quick parsing.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, one action) and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose and parameter origin. However, it omits contextual prerequisites (e.g., debugger must be started, thread must exist). For a basic switch operation, this is nearly complete but could be more thorough.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying the parameter's source ('thread ID from list_debugger_threads'), which clarifies the integer's origin and validity. While this is helpful, it does not explain the format, range, or what the ID represents beyond the source hint.

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 ('Switch the debugger's active thread') and the resource (active thread). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_debugger_threads (which lists threads), step_into/step_over (execution control), and others. The purpose 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 provides explicit guidance: 'Pass the thread ID from list_debugger_threads.' This instructs the agent to first retrieve a valid ID from that specific sibling tool. However, it does not include when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., debugger must be running). The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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