pin_launch

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 discloses the essential behavioral trait: the process is left suspended at PROCESS_STARTED rather than running, which is non-obvious and critical. This prevents the agent from assuming a running process after launch.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the action and the suspended-state behavior. It is efficient but slightly compact; the handshake/port context is left entirely to the schema.

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 5-param launch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key lifecycle behavior (suspended state) and the resume step. It does not mention port/connection handshake requirements which appear in the schema, but the critical agent-facing behavior is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 5 parameters are already documented in the schema with defaults and meanings. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the parameters themselves, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Start) and resources (Intel PIN + idadbg on a Windows EXE), and explicitly distinguishes the mode from alternatives by noting 'no IDA GUI'. An agent can tell exactly what this does relative to siblings like pin_status or pin_resume.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-on tool (pin_resume) and the condition for using it ('Leaves the process suspended... so you can set breakpoints, then call pin_resume'). This routes the agent to the correct next action, which is the crux of a debugger launch tool.

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