gdb_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic actions (start session, load binary/plugin) and the return type, but lacks transparency about side effects, whether it is blocking, potential errors, or required setup (e.g., remote binary must exist). The behavioral disclosure is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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: one sentence for purpose, an Args block with two parameters, and Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity and presence of many sibling tools, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameters. However, it omits mention of prerequisites (e.g., SSH connection via ssh_connect) and the fact that starting a new session might interfere with an existing one. The description is sufficient for basic use but not fully complete for safe 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is essential. It adds clear semantics: binary_path is an absolute path on the remote Linux, and plugin_path is an optional script path with a concrete example. This goes beyond the schema's type information and provides actionable guidance.

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 it starts a GDB debugging session and loads a target binary with an optional plugin. The verb '启动 GDB 调试会话' is specific and the resource is well-defined. Among many gdb_* sibling tools, this is distinctly the initialization tool.

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 implies this is the first step in a GDB debugging workflow (loading binary and plugin). However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like the need for an existing SSH connection (suggested by sibling ssh_connect). Usage context is hinted but not fully explicit.

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