Dbg Start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful precondition — debugger type is configured manually in IDA, not through this tool — which is useful. It omits blocking behavior, side effects, failure modes, and whether an existing session is affected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the parenthetical prerequisite is compact and relevant. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally sound.

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 2-param, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and one precondition but leaves out lifecycle context such as what state the session must be in and how it relates to the rest of the dbg_* family. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 both timeout and instance_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or override semantics beyond that, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Start debugger process.' An agent can distinguish it from siblings like dbg_continue, dbg_exit, or dbg_run_to, which operate on an already-running session. It stops short of stating what a successful start yields, but the core action is 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives. The note that the debugger type must be configured manually in IDA is a prerequisite, but the description never says when to call this versus dbg_continue/dbg_run_to, nor that it must precede the other dbg_* tools.

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