add_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions executing GDB commands but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires a running target, or can be done while paused. Side effects and prerequisites are absent.

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—two sentences, no extraneous text. The purpose is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 use in a debugging context with many siblings (e.g., gdb_command, list_probes), the description lacks essential context such as what a 'probe' is, persistence, output behavior (though output schema may help), and interaction with execution state. Insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand usage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'commands' parameter format but omits the required 'location' and the optional 'continue_' parameter, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 adds a probe (conditional breakpoint/auto-sampling) and mentions GDB commands. However, it could be more specific about what distinguishes a probe from a regular breakpoint or other sibling tools like gdb_command.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, when to use add_probe vs. gdb_command to set a breakpoint, or vs. other probe manipulation tools like remove_probe.

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