ctxdebug
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.1
- Disambiguation2/5
While tools are prefixed by backend (ida_, windbg_, x64dbg_), there are multiple near-duplicates across backends (evaluate_expression vs x64dbg_eval_expression, read_memory vs windbg_read_memory vs ida_read_bytes) and unprefixed tools lack clear backend identification. The sheer 169-tool volume makes it easy to select the wrong tool, especially for similar operations like continue, step, and breakpoint across three debuggers.
Naming Consistency2/5Naming mixes verb_noun, noun_verb, bare verbs, and nouns (disassemble, breakpoint, process_info, memory_recall). Each backend prefix has its own internal inconsistency (e.g., ida_functions vs ida_decompile, windbg_status vs windbg_start_executable). The unprefixed tools are particularly inconsistent, mixing styles and using generic names.
Tool Count1/5With 169 tools, the server far exceeds reasonable scoping even for a multi-debugger orchestration layer. Many tools duplicate similar functionality across backends, and there are multiple escape-hatch raw command tools that add to the bloat.
Completeness5/5The tool set is extremely comprehensive, covering process/execution control, memory/breakpoints, disassembly/decompilation, symbol/string/xref analysis, session lifecycle, and cross-debugger composite pipelines. Raw command escape hatches for all three backends fill any residual gaps, so agents are unlikely to hit dead ends.
Average 3.8/5 across 169 of 169 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 8 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action and repeats the enum values from the schema, but it does not explain side effects such as whether an existing comment is overwritten, whether the comment persists in the IDA database, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. It avoids any fluff or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool. The list of kinds is helpful and not wasteful, even though it mirrors the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what happens after the call (e.g., success behavior, return value) and clarify the address format (e.g., linear address, expression). The description omits these details, leaving the agent without enough information to fully understand the tool's behavior in context. It is minimally viable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions: address, text, and kind (with enum). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and it merely restates the kinds that are already in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Add a comment at an address.' It specifies the resource (address) and the action (add comment), and lists the comment kinds, which distinguishes it from other IDA modification tools like ida_rename or ida_patch_bytes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings by naming alternatives, so it lacks the explicit sibling distinction of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ida_rename or ida_set_type. The description simply states what it does without context on when it is appropriate or when another tool should be used instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Search the binary...' without mentioning return format, performance characteristics, or any side effects. There is no information about how hits are returned or what happens on invalid patterns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy. It includes just enough to convey the core operation and the key kind values, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description fails to explain what results look like (e.g., addresses, matches, count). It also doesn't clarify the scope (e.g., current IDA binary) or any limitations like search speed for large patterns. Given the many sibling tools, context for usage is minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the 'kind: bytes|string|unicode' hint, which duplicates the schema's kind parameter description. No additional parameter semantics are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching the binary for a byte pattern or string. The 'kind: bytes|string|unicode' hint clarifies the search modes. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ida_find_string_refs, the direct search operation is clear enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ida_find_string_refs, windbg_search_memory, or ida_scan_bossix. It only states the basic operation, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it omits important effects such as requiring an active debugging session, behavior when the breakpoint is hit, and any side effects on the target process. The condition semantics ('bp continues if false') appear only in the schema, not the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, and includes the optional condition in a clear, compact manner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a debugger mutation tool, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what happens after setting the breakpoint (e.g., whether a breakpoint ID is returned), nor does it distinguish among the many breakpoint-related sibling tools. The lack of an output schema and annotations further increases the need for description context, which is unmet.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully specifies the parameters and examples for both 'location' and 'condition'. The description adds only minimal extra meaning by mentioning 'cdb-expression', which is redundant with the schema property description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'software breakpoint', which is specific and distinguishes from data or hardware breakpoints. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'windbg_set_conditional_bp', which likely serves a similar purpose with condition support.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as windbg_set_data_breakpoint, windbg_set_conditional_bp, or windbg_bp_template. It merely states what the tool does without any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states 'List threads' and does not disclose whether it is read-only, potential side effects, error conditions, or the exact output structure beyond the field names.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single succinct sentence with all essential information placed upfront. It contains no redundant or filler words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimal but lacks context about the execution environment (IDA vs debugger) and when to select this tool over similar thread-listing options. This ambiguity reduces completeness for an agent selecting among many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description correctly implies the tool takes no arguments. The field list (TID, entry, state, priority) provides a hint of the response content, though the output schema already covers this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'threads' with key fields (TID, entry, state, priority). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like windbg_list_threads, leaving ambiguity about the execution context (IDA vs debugger).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as windbg_list_threads or windbg_thread_stacks. There is no mention of prerequisites, domain, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It claims to 'Find all strings' but the schema shows a default limit of 200, meaning without explicit parameters it will not return all strings—this is misleading. It also does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how results are formatted, or any section/encoding scoping, all of which are important for an agent to set expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—two short sentences that immediately state the purpose and a key use case. It is front-loaded with the action verb. However, the word 'all' is potentially misleading given the default limit, and the description is so brief that it omits important behavioral details (though that is scored elsewhere). For conciseness itself, it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (two optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but has gaps. It does not explain the return format, the effect of the limit/min_len parameters, or the fact that 'all strings' is bounded by defaults. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the output shape, which it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (limit and min_len) with defaults, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Find all strings in the binary') and resource, and adds a relevant use case (IOC extraction). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like ida_find_string_refs because it targets raw string extraction rather than string references. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar search/discover tools, so it loses one point.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use context ('Useful for IOC extraction') but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor when not to use it. There is no mention of ida_find_string_refs or ida_search as alternatives for different string-related tasks. This is implied but not explicit, so it earns a 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the basic action. It omits behavior such as what happens if the module is not found, how the output is ordered, or any side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise with no redundancy or irrelevant details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, an existing output schema, and a clear statement of what is returned, the description is largely complete. However, the lack of usage context and behavioral disclosures prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the optional `module` parameter and its default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the export table of a module, listing names, addresses, and ordinals. This is specific and actionable, but it does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like `ida_exports`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 only adds the cdb 'ln' implementation detail, but fails to disclose return format, behavior when no symbol is found, or whether the operation is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., symbol name, offset, or raw cdb output). It does not, leaving a significant gap even for a one-parameter lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a simple 'Address' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format, interpretation, or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Find') and clearly states the resource ('nearest symbol to an address'), and the reference to cdb 'ln' distinguishes it from sibling symbol tools like windbg_find_symbols.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as windbg_find_symbols or windbg_address. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It simply states 'Dump a structure type' without mentioning side effects, output format, or limitations such as the need for symbol paths. This is insufficient for a debugger tool that could fail silently or produce large outputs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the core action and the optional parameter. It is free of redundant phrasing or fluff, earning every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple, the description lacks essential context about what the output looks like, whether it requires symbol resolution, or any failure modes. Without an output schema or annotations, this leaves the agent uncertain about expectations, making the description incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions, including the optional nature of 'address' and example values for 'type_name'. The description's phrase 'Optionally apply to an address' reinforces this but adds little beyond what the schema states, so the schema carries the semantic weight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Dump a structure type') using a specific command ('cdb dt') and mentions the optional address application. This distinctly separates it from sibling windbg tools like windbg_disassemble or windbg_read_memory, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., symbols loaded), exclusions, or when another command might be more appropriate. The only additional context, 'Optionally apply to an address,' is about parameter usage, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavior. It merely says 'Run !heap' without describing output, potential side effects, or whether the command is read-only. This leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. Every word earns its place, and the examples are concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple passthrough wrapper, the description is adequate with usage examples, but it doesn't mention expected output or the broader set of available !heap options. It's minimal and leaves room for more detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the single 'args' parameter, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds concrete usage examples and clarifies the parameter format, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Arguments to !heap'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs the !heap command with optional arguments, which is specific and identifies the resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like windbg_heap_block_info or windbg_heap_neighbors, but the generic wrapper intent is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides example arguments ('-s' for summary, '-p -a <addr>' for block inspection) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus more specialized heap-related siblings. There's no mention of alternatives or exclusion scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only restates the purpose without mentioning read-only nature, output format, platform context, or potential side effects. The schema and output schema carry the burden of explaining parameters and returns, leaving the description thin on behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core function and direction flexibility, appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has full schema coverage, and includes an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks any mention of platform applicability or relationship to sibling xref tools, making selection slightly less informed in a context with many similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, including the address prefix warning and the direction enum semantics. The description adds only 'callers / callees', which paraphrases the schema's direction explanation and does not enrich parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets cross-references to or from an address, with 'callers / callees' clarifying the direction concept. It covers both directions in one tool, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ida_xrefs_to and ida_xrefs_from, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving callers or callees, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the direction-specific siblings or other xref utilities. The direction parameter in the schema provides context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions/IDA state, whether the decompiler must be licensed, or what happens on failure. Merely saying 'using Hex-Rays decompiler' hints at a dependency but gives no behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the tool's purpose without any superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but gives the core idea. However, it lacks important context such as prerequisites (e.g., IDA must be running, decompiler availability) and how the result is returned (e.g., as a string). Given the sibling tools and complexity of the domain, a bit more context would improve completeness, but it is not severely deficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the 'address' parameter as 'Function address or name' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify accepted formats (e.g., hex, symbol) but the schema is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action: 'Decompile function to pseudocode' using the Hex-Rays decompiler. The verb 'decompile' and resource 'function' are specific, and the mention of 'pseudocode' distinguishes it from disassembly tools like ida_disassemble and from ida_get_pseudocode_all_functions which targets all functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for a single function, while ida_get_pseudocode_all_functions exists for all functions, nor any preconditions like IDA being loaded or the function address being valid. The usage context is entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only states the action without mentioning read-only status, return format, or error handling, leaving behavior mostly implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits the return value format and any caveats. Without annotations or output schema, a bit more detail (e.g., returns a string) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the only parameter's meaning ('Address to inspect') at 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The tool description does not mention the address parameter explicitly, but the schema compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('type signature') and scope ('function or variable'), making its function obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ida_set_type and ida_disassemble.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or relation to other IDA tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Rename' implies a mutation of the IDA database, but the description does not disclose whether this affects references, requires a specific IDA state, or whether the operation is reversible. It merely states the action without side-effect context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core action and parameters. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral caveats (e.g., prerequisites, side effects), which leaves some gaps for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% as both parameters have descriptions ('Address to rename' and 'New name (IDA-valid identifier)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for a parameter set already fully documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (rename) and the resource (function, label, or global variable at an address). It distinguishes itself from similar IDA tools like ida_set_type or ida_comment by naming the exact operation, leaving no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool (e.g., ida_set_type or ida_run_script) would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the action verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that this is a setter/mutation operation but does not mention side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, or whether the change persists. The only behavioral detail is 'C declaration syntax,' which is already implicit in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two params and full schema coverage, but it is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers the basic what and syntax but misses behavioral context such as side effects, prerequisites, or error behavior. It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions, including an example for type_str. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set'), the resource ('type signature for a function or variable'), and the syntax style ('C declaration syntax'). It is specific and distinguishable from the sibling ida_get_type by the explicit verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer ida_get_type or other IDA tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'read' and adds the output format detail, but it does not state whether the read is safe, what side effects (if any) exist, or any limitations. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and output format. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema is comprehensive and the output format is stated, but the description does not clarify which debugging context (IDA, windbg, or other) this tool applies to. This ambiguity is significant given sibling tools like ida_read_bytes and windbg_read_memory, leaving a gap in overall completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with rich parameter descriptions (e.g., the hex prefix warning for 'address'). The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the explanatory burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read memory') and the output format ('hex+ASCII dump'), making the tool's purpose specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling memory-read tools like windbg_read_memory or read_string, which weakens clarity in the broader toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or examples of appropriate use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two useful behavioral traits: filtering of 'Building memory map' progress lines and the ability to cap output. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, requires an active target, or any side effects. The description is partially transparent but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and adding two specific behavioral details. Every word provides value; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and extra behavior, but for a tool in a large family of WinDbg tools, it lacks guidance on when to use it vs alternatives and doesn't mention any prerequisites like a paused debuggee or output format. With no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no specific parameter details beyond the schema, merely mentioning output capping in vague terms. The address, timeout, and max_lines semantics are fully defined in the schema, so the description provides marginal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Describe a virtual address with !address.' It uses a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('virtual address') and identifies the underlying WinDbg command. It also mentions filtering and output capping, adding useful scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like windbg_address_to_symbol or windbg_read_memory, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, situations, or exclusions. With many sibling tools like windbg_address_to_symbol and windbg_read_memory offering related functionality, the absence of selection criteria leaves the agent uncertain about tool choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Modify a CPU register' but does not mention that this changes the debuggee's execution state, requires a paused target, or could be irreversible. Side effects and prerequisites are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a concrete example. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with complete schema and no output schema, the description is adequate in isolation. However, it lacks usage context and side-effect disclosure, which are particularly important given the absence of annotations and the existence of many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers both parameters with descriptive text (register name without @, new value as cdb expression), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful example ('name='rax', value='0x42'') but does not introduce meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Modify' and identifies the resource 'CPU register', with a concrete example. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from read-only register tools like windbg_registers, even without explicitly naming alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as windbg_evaluate, windbg_run_command, or the generic set_register. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does include a useful '⚠ Modifies process state' warning, which alerts the agent to the mutating nature of the operation. However, it lacks further behavioral details such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or crash risk, so the transparency is only partially addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and a relevant safety warning. There is no filler or redundant content, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description plus the highly detailed input schema and an output schema cover the essential mechanics of the operation. However, it lacks context about when to choose this tool over sibling write/patch tools and only offers a generic hazard warning, leaving some contextual gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for both required parameters: 'address' explains the 0x prefix requirement and decimal misinterpretation risk, and 'data' explains the contiguous hex format with examples and contrast to search_pattern. The tool description adds no parameter information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function ('Write hex bytes to memory') with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling write/patch tools like windbg_write_memory or ida_patch_bytes, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as windbg_write_memory or ida_patch_bytes. There are no exclusions, conditions, or contextual hints beyond the implied purpose of writing memory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful detail about the output (module + function names per frame) and scope (current thread), but does not disclose whether it requires an active debugging session, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no params and an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description does not mention which debugger or environment it applies to, and given the large number of sibling tools (including windbg_call_stack and ida_call_tree), this missing context makes it slightly incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema, which is already empty and fully covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the current thread's call stack with module and function names per frame, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like windbg_call_stack or ida_call_tree, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning any exclusions or references to similar tools, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the output is 'import table grouped by DLL', which is a behavioral detail. It does not mention any side effects, performance impact, or special states (e.g., whether the module must be loaded), but for a read-only tool, the absence of such caveats is acceptable. The analytical hints add value but are not behavioral disclosures.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and interpretation hints in the second. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose. It could be slightly more informative about alternatives, but overall it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling 'ida_imports' and does not clarify whether this tool applies to IDA, x64dbg, or another context. The analytical hints add context but do not resolve this ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema's description covers the only parameter (module) thoroughly: 'Optional module name. If omitted, uses main module.' The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get import table grouped by DLL.' This specifies the resource (imports) and the presentation format (grouped by DLL). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'ida_imports', which likely serves a similar purpose, so it does not fully differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence provides implied usage guidance by mapping import categories to malware traits ('Network imports → C2; crypto imports → ransomware; anti-debug imports → evasion.'). This suggests when the tool is useful for malware analysis, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavior of stopping at a null terminator and ASCII encoding, but does not mention max_len behavior, error conditions, or what happens if no null is found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool, the purpose and encoding are stated, but max_len semantics and usage selection guidance are missing. The output schema may cover return format, but the description is only minimally adequate for deciding when and how to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not address max_len at all; only the address parameter is well documented in the schema. The 'ASCII' detail adds encoding context but does not meaningfully clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses 'Read' as a specific verb, identifies the resource as 'null-terminated string from memory', and specifies 'ASCII' encoding. This clearly distinguishes it from raw memory readers like read_memory and search_strings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 sibling memory-reading tools or search_strings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that results are chronological and include timestamps, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the output includes full tool call details (parameters, results), potential size limits, or any side effects (though it seems read-only). This is minimal viable transparency but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information and is easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description states the core behavior (list tool calls chronologically with timestamps) but does not elaborate on the return structure (e.g., fields included) or usage context. It is minimally acceptable, but the agent might need to call it to discover the output shape. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more detail would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single integer session_id with no description (0% coverage). The description only mentions 'a session' but does not explain what the session_id represents, how to discover it, or any expected format beyond being an integer. This adds minimal semantic value over the raw parameter name, leaving the agent to infer the meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return all tool calls from a session in chronological order with timestamps.' It specifies the action (return), resource (tool calls from a session), and key attributes (chronological order, timestamps), which distinguishes it from sibling session tools like session_search or session_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., an active session, how to obtain the session_id). The only implied context is from the name and description, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context by listing the contents of the summary, but it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., session must exist), or whether the operation is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. It lists three concrete outputs without any fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this instead of nearby session tools and does not mention error conditions or assumptions about session_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (session_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameter or clarify its meaning. This leaves the agent without added semantics beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('session summary'), and lists concrete contents (top tools, key addresses, critical findings), clearly distinguishing it from sibling session tools like session_search or session_stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool – when an AI-readable summary of a session is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses the async default and that long waits do not force break-in, which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether execution stops at the target address, how it interacts with breakpoints, or if the target process must be actively running. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and includes only the essential behavioral note. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a technically proficient user but leaves gaps: it does not explain the typical workflow (e.g., after inspecting shadow stack contents), what happens upon reaching the address, or whether a running debuggee is required. The schema partially compensates, but the description alone is sparse for a debugger control operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, which is the baseline for 3. The description adds extra semantic meaning for 'index' by embedding it in the formula 'poi(@ssp+index*8)', clarifying its role as a slot offset. Timeout and async_run are sufficiently explained in the schema, so the overall parameter understanding is strong.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Run to poi(@ssp+index*8)' clearly states a specific action (run until the address stored at an offset on the shadow stack) with a precise formula, distinguishing it from generic run-to or shadow stack inspection tools. The technical notation may be opaque to newcomers, but the purpose is unambiguous for experienced debugger users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like windbg_run_to or other shadow stack tools. The async note is a behavioral detail, not a usage recommendation, and no prerequisites or exclusion scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the return value. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation on the target process, potential failure modes, side effects, or alignment/commitment details. This is a significant gap for a memory allocation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences that directly convey the purpose and return value, with no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the parameter schema is well-covered, but with no annotations and no behavioral details, the description is adequate yet incomplete. It does not explain memory allocation semantics such as page alignment, commitment, or failure conditions, leaving the agent with only partial context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (size and protection) with defaults and example values, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Allocate memory'), the target ('target process'), and the return value ('Returns the allocated address'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that read, write, or search memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one needs to allocate memory in the target process, but it provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does specify the scan scope (PEB flags, API imports, byte patterns, RDTSC) and output (detected techniques + bypass suggestions), which provides a clear behavioral profile. However, it does not explicitly state that the scan is read-only, mention performance implications, or disclose any side effects, relying instead on the tool name to imply scanning behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 18 words, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It efficiently packs the scan categories and return value without any wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential behavior and output adequately. It could add a line about what 'bossix' refers to or the expected environment, but overall it is sufficient for agent selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly omits parameter details, and with no parameters the baseline score is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a comprehensive bossix scan covering PEB flags, API imports, byte patterns, and RDTSC, and specifies the return value (techniques + bypass suggestions). This is a specific verb+resource description, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ida_scan_bossix or mco_bossix_report.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention which contexts warrant this scan or contrast with related scan/report tools, leaving the agent without explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 notes the action ('dump to disk') but does not disclose side effects such as whether it overwrites files, requires specific permissions, or alters the state of the debugger/IDA session. The minimal detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and a key use case ('post-unpacking, etc.'). Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with a schema and output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or overwrite behavior, and there are no annotations to compensate. The parenthetical gives a hint but not full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'module' and 'output' having descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Dump a loaded module to disk'. It clearly states the tool's function and the parenthetical 'post-unpacking, etc.' adds context. Among sibling tools, no other tool performs dumping, so it is well-distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'post-unpacking, etc.' implies a typical usage scenario but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternative dump tools exist among siblings, so guidance is limited but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does, but does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether it modifies the IDA database, overwrites existing names, requires prior analysis, or is reversible. For a tool that applies signatures, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains zero redundant words. It is concise and well-structured for the tool's simple purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks behavioral transparency (side effects, prerequisites) which would make it more complete, especially since no annotations exist to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (sig_file) with full schema coverage (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning by specifying 'FLIRT' before '.sig', which slightly clarifies the expected file type, but it does not add significant semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Apply') and a specific resource ('FLIRT .sig signature file'), and clearly states the outcome ('auto-identify library functions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other IDA operations, such as ida_make_function or ida_set_type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool (when you have a FLIRT .sig file to apply), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools. Given the specialized nature and no obvious sibling overlap, the context is implied 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid addresses, or any side effects. The description simply restates the obvious operation without revealing behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. It earns every word while remaining appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema or annotations, the description should cover return format and error behavior. It explains the function option but omits what the disassembly output looks like (e.g., addresses, bytes, mnemonics) and how errors are handled. Core purpose is clear, but important context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no new meaning; 'function=true for entire function' merely duplicates the schema's 'If true, disassemble entire function.' It does not compensate for any gaps or add examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Disassemble') and resource ('instructions at an address'), clearly distinguishing this tool from other disassembly tools. The mention of 'function=true for entire function' adds a unique capability, reinforcing purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guidance is 'Use function=true for entire function,' which explains a parameter option but does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like windbg_disassemble or ida_decompile. Context implies IDA disassembly, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' info, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly say whether it is safe, whether it requires an active IDA session, or what the return format is. It also does not disclose any potential errors or side effects. This is minimal transparency for a tool with zero annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the main action and resource. It enumerates the specific data items concisely. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 0-parameter read-only tool, the description gives a clear summary of the returned fields, which is adequate for basic invocation. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of return format, prerequisites, or error behavior. It is a minimal viable description but leaves some context gaps (e.g., whether this is for the current binary).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none. The list of returned fields adds some context but is not required for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed binary info') followed by an explicit list of the data returned (path, arch, image base, entry point, size). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ida_export_idb_info, which is about exporting database info, and ida_status, which likely reports tool status. The description is unambiguous and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a binary must be loaded), nor does it contrast with related tools such as ida_segments, ida_functions, or ida_info. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the scan only reads the binary, modifies the IDA database, or produces a report. The term 'scan' implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the action and scope. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Scan'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what the tool does but omits any information about return values or output format. Without an output schema or annotations, an agent may not know how to interpret the results, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters are defined, so the description correctly avoids parameter details. The schema has 100% coverage (empty schema), and there is nothing to add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool scans the binary for bossix imports, string indicators, and techniques. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, distinguishing it from generic scan tools and emphasizing IDA context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like bossix_scan or other IDA analysis tools. It does not mention exclusions or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or that the 'all' claim is limited by the 'limit' parameter (default 50). The description could mislead about completeness of results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and purpose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with 2 parameters, but no output schema exists, so the description should explain return values or behavior. It does not mention what the result looks like, pagination, or edge cases (e.g., invalid address). Still, for a basic xref lookup, the description covers the core purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get all cross-references') plus a resource ('an address') and clarifies the direction with 'TO' and the parenthetical 'who calls/references this'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool ida_xrefs_from, which would handle the opposite direction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by explaining the purpose ('who calls/references this'), but does not explicitly contrast with ida_xrefs_from or other xref-related tools. There is no mention of when to use this vs. alternatives, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List all loaded modules' clearly indicates a read-only operation and specifies returned fields, but it does not mention any limitations, prerequisites, or context (e.g., which process or session). It is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key output fields. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless listing tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It names the main output fields (bases, sizes, entry points). However, it could clarify the context (e.g., current target vs another process), but this is a minor gap given the output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 according to the rubric. There is nothing to add beyond the description, and no parameters need clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all loaded modules with bases, sizes, and entry points, which is specific and informative. However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling tool 'windbg_list_modules', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'windbg_list_modules' or 'memory_map'. The description simply states what it does without context for choosing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, session requirements, whether the record is appended or overwritten, or what happens if no session exists. The description only restates the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only the basic purpose and usage, omitting essential details like parameter purposes, return behavior, and edge cases. This makes it incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only session_id has a description), and the tool description does not explain any parameters. It does not describe the meaning of args, duration_ms, or how tool_name and result relate to the recorded call, so it adds little beyond the minimal schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Record a tool call into the current session.' It uses a specific verb (record) and resource (tool call), and distinguishes it from sibling session tools like session_search and session_replay.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this after every MCP tool call you want to track.' This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Run !analyze' without explaining whether the command is read-only, what output to expect, or any prerequisites beyond the timing hint. This is a minimal disclosure for a debugger command and leaves important behavioral traits unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, immediately front-loads the action, and includes a useful usage hint. No wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple command-wrapper tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about when to use it. However, it does not explain what happens in the absence of a crash context or how the output is delivered, leaving some gaps for an agent relying solely on this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the sole parameter 'verbose' with a clear description ('Use !analyze -v'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: 'Run !analyze on the current state.' This clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like windbg_run_command or windbg_crash_triage, which could also be used for crash analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context: 'Best after windbg_open_dump or on an unhandled exception.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the check-and-resolve behavior, but does not mention whether the tool reads memory directly, what happens if the address is not a vtable, whether symbols must be loaded, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no redundant language. It front-loads the action and purpose, then adds the use case. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose and a use case. However, it does not specify the exact return format or behavior for non-vtable addresses, which would help an agent fully anticipate the tool's output. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more detail could be justified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'address' parameter as 'Address that may contain a vtable pointer' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by explaining the tool's purpose with that address, but does not add format requirements or additional nuances, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and clearly states the resource ('an address contains a vtable pointer') and the expected outcome ('resolve it to a symbol + disassembly'). This distinguishes it from the sibling windbg_find_vtable_owner, which focuses on ownership rather than symbol resolution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use context: 'Useful for type confusion / UAF analysis.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar windbg tools (e.g., windbg_find_vtable_owner) or provide exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 states the operation (listing threads) but offers no additional context about whether an active debugging session is required, what the output format is, or that it is a read-only operation. The description is not misleading, but it lacks meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the obvious action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List all threads') and the scope ('in the current process'), with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not describe the return value or thread details, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. However, for a basic listing tool, it is not severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'List' with the resource 'all threads in the current process', which is specific and unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like windbg_switch_thread or windbg_call_stack, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as windbg_thread_stacks or get_threads. There is no mention of preconditions, related workflows, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the core action, omitting important context like that the target process resumes, that a temporary breakpoint is set, or that execution stops on timeout. The timeout behavior is only in the schema, not the description, and there's no note about side effects like changing the program counter or triggering breakpoints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Run' and the target condition, and the parenthetical cdb command provides useful orientation without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple control tool with two well-documented parameters, this is minimally adequate. The description tells the agent what the tool does and the schema fills in parameter details. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it relative to other debugger control tools and does not describe behavioral side effects, making it less complete than ideal for an agent that must select correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'address' and 'timeout' have descriptions). The description adds the cdb command example and clarifies the address parameter meaning ('Address or symbol'), but this largely repeats the schema's own description. Since the schema already documents both parameters, the description adds minimal extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'Run until execution reaches a given address or symbol'. It identifies the target resource (an address or symbol) and the exact behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like windbg_continue (run freely) or windbg_step_in (single step). The inclusion of the cdb command equivalent reinforces the precise operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: you want execution to stop at a specific code location. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using windbg_continue for undirected execution or windbg_go for simple resume. The guidance is evident from the name and description but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not disclose return format, error handling, endianness, or confirm that it is a read-only operation, leaving important behavioral traits unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core message, making it an exemplar of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is quite minimal and does not mention what the search returns or any limitations or prerequisites. However, the schema provides strong parameter documentation and the operation is relatively simple, so it barely meets the minimum viable standard for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all parameters thoroughly, including descriptions and examples (e.g., length format, pattern syntax). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond summarizing the pattern types already captured by the 'kind' enum, so baseline 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (search), the resource (memory range), and the pattern categories (byte/string/dword/qword). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like windbg_read_memory or windbg_find_symbols, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or comparisons to sibling search tools. It falls into the 'implied usage' category.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only says 'Set', which implies mutation but doesn't explain whether this persists, whether it replaces the existing path, or if the debugger must be running. The mention of cdb '.srcpath' hints at the underlying command but doesn't elaborate on behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, directly states the action and resource. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about path formatting (e.g., semicolon-separated directories) or how it interacts with source lines lookup. For a simple setter, this is acceptable but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single 'path' parameter with 'Source path'. The description repeats 'source code search path' but adds no additional syntax or usage details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (Set) and resource (source code search path), and references the corresponding cdb command (.srcpath), differentiating it from the similar windbg_set_symbol_path tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. However, the description implies it's for configuring source code lookup for debugging, which is a distinct operation from setting symbol paths or other debugger settings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key prerequisite (requires source path) and implies a read-only action ('Show'), but does not explain the output format, error behavior when source path is missing, or whether line numbers/symbols are included. This leaves important operational behavior unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Show source code lines') and immediately notes the key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally complete: it states the purpose and a key prerequisite. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over disassembly or address tools, nor does it describe what happens if the source path is not set. Given no output schema or annotations, the description leaves some contextual gaps for an agent choosing among many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'address' is already fully documented in the schema with 'Address (default: current IP)', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the same address focus, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as 'source code lines around an address', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_disassemble or windbg_address. The parenthetical prerequisite '(requires source path)' further clarifies its scope and differentiates it from assembly-level or raw memory viewing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case—show source-level context for an address—but offers no explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria. The source path requirement is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to select this tool over its siblings, leaving the agent to infer its place among the many windbg and IDA tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose performance characteristics, whether the result is sorted, or how comprehensive the address set is beyond the three categories mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and main option. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It clearly indicates scope and filtering, though it could optionally mention that the output consists of addresses and names, but that is largely inferable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (limit and pattern). The description only restates 'optional pattern filter', adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists named addresses (functions, globals, labels) with an optional pattern filter. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ida_functions or ida_strings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ida_functions or ida_search. It implies usage as a general listing tool but does not explain when it is preferable or what it excludes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the examples clarify what is returned. However, it does not explicitly state that no binary analysis is performed (it is a static knowledge base) or mention any side effects or lack thereof, leaving some room for ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose with enriching examples, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, output schema exists), but the description fails to explain the parameter or the output structure. While it gives enough context for when to use it, the missing parameter documentation leaves a notable gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the 'category' parameter at all, even though the schema provides an enum with eight possible values. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have explained how to filter results, but it remains completely silent on parameters, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema enum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List the agent's known binary patterns' and gives concrete examples (packer signatures, anti-debug checks, crypto routines). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform searches or scans on the current binary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'USE WHEN' clause provides explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool ('deciding what to search for, or to understand what the agent recognizes'). It does not name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over other analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the methods (WinDbg and IDA) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what actions it performs on the target, what it returns, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a combined analysis tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant information. It is concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool appears to be a complex workflow (combining WinDbg and IDA Pro), but the description provides minimal detail. It does not explain return values (no output schema), prerequisites, expected runtime, or what 'suspicious allocation patterns' means. Given the complexity, the description is insufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's action rather than parameter syntax, which is appropriate since there is no input schema to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Detect heap spray attacks' using specific methods (WinDbg !heap -s summary + IDA Pro heap allocation site mapping). This is a specific verb+resource (detect + heap spray attacks) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like generic windbg_heap or ida_decompile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when you suspect heap spray) but does not explicitly mention when to use versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No comparison to related tools like windbg_heap or ida_analyze_function is given, leaving the 'when' partially implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches persistent memory at a specific path and is for recalling insights. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor describe behavior when no matches are found or whether any local indexing is involved. This is adequate but has gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the storage location and a clear usage cue. It's efficient, though the first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Recall' vs 'Searches'). Still, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it searches, where, and when to use it. It doesn't explain return format, but the output schema handles that. It could mention limitations or fallback behavior, but overall it's complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a helpful description and examples for 'query'. The description itself does not add much beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 due to complete schema coverage. It reinforces the nature of the query ('matching patterns and insights') but doesn't provide additional semantic details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Recall insights from past debugging sessions' and 'Searches the agent's persistent memory (~/.x64ai/)'. This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from most sibling tools by targeting persistent memory, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from session_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides an explicit 'USE WHEN: starting analysis on a new binary — past insights may apply.' This gives a clear context for when to invoke the tool. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references, so it doesn't reach level 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose important behavioral details such as whether the change is persistent, whether it affects the current thread only, or whether the process must be paused. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and every word earns its place. It front-loads the core action and then gives concrete examples. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage examples. However, the lack of behavioral caveats (e.g., side effects, thread scope, pause requirements) and no differentiation from sibling windbg_set_register leave some completeness gaps, making it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing example values (0x0, 0x401000) and contextual guidance like setting RAX=0 after IsDebuggerPresent. This enriches understanding without repeating schema content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'Set a CPU register to a specific value.' It also gives concrete use cases (bypassing checks, redirecting execution, modifying arguments). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tool windbg_set_register, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool via examples: bypassing IsDebuggerPresent, changing RIP, modifying function arguments. It does not mention exclusions or explicit alternatives, but the use cases are enough to guide an agent. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states a read-only operation ('Show'). It does not disclose behavior such as whether a thread must be selected, what happens with stale or invalid states, or how the stack is formatted. However, as a simple read operation, the implied behavior is straightforward, so it is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It fully conveys the core purpose in minimal space, achieving perfect conciseness without sacrificing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity, full schema coverage, and lack of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for basic invocation. It clearly identifies the scope (current thread) and action. However, it could have added a note about when the call stack is meaningful (e.g., when the target is broken in), which prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'mode' and 'count' have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies. The enum values for 'mode' are listed but their functional differences are not elaborated in the description either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Show' with the resource 'call stack of the current thread', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like windbg_thread_stacks (all threads) and windbg_stack_find_thread (thread discovery). The scope is explicit and matches the tool's name and purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., a paused process), exclusions, or comparisons to other stack-related tools. The sole sentence simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 return format (key=value table plus raw cdb output), which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the read is side-effect-free, whether it reflects the current thread context, or any limitations/edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a valuable detail about output formatting, earning a top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter. The description covers the return format, which partially compensates for the absence of an output schema. It does not explain how register groups affect output, but the schema covers the group choices. Overall adequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the 'group' parameter with an enum and default value (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: "Read the CPU registers." This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like windbg_set_register (write operation) and windbg_call_stack (stack trace). The output format is also specified, providing additional clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context requirements (e.g., suspended process), or exclusions such as not using it during live debugging. The usage is implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if no session is active, or whether it requires a live target. The list of outputs implies a read-only status query, but the description does not make that explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the key outputs in a compact, scannable manner. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter status tool, the description covers the main output fields (active, target, RIP, symbol, process, thread) without needing to detail return format. It is sufficient for an agent to know what information to expect, though it could clarify whether the output is a formatted string or structured object.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes no parameters (empty schema, 100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. It would not be improved by adding parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Show' and enumerates the exact resources (session active status, current target, RIP, nearest symbol, current process and thread). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like windbg_io_status or windbg_registers by focusing on a session-level summary rather than a specific subsystem.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it shows, with no mention of contexts (e.g., 'use for a quick session overview') or exclusions. Given the large number of windbg sibling tools, this is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 only states the action and grouping but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires debug privileges, whether it reflects a live snapshot, or any performance implications. The word 'List' implies read-only but that is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description omits context about which process (likely the current debug target) the handles belong to and whether any setup or target selection is required. An output schema exists to cover return values, but the description alone is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which aligns with the baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists process handles grouped by type, using the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'windbg_handle' which likely targets a single handle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when an overview of open handles is needed, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The straightforward 'List' verb provides some implied usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. It simply states the action ('Scan') without adding operational context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and includes clarifying examples. There is no filler or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple zero-parameter scan tool, but with no output schema, it does not explain what the scan returns or how to interpret results. The narrow scope and self-explanatory name partially compensate, but some behavioral context is still missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when no parameters exist, and the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('cryptographic algorithm indicators') with concrete examples (constants, XOR patterns, S-boxes), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ida_find_string_refs (strings) and ida_search (general search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The tool's purpose is implicitly clear from its name and description, but there is no guidance on when to prefer it over other scan tools or any exclusions. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals that it starts from the first function and respects a limit, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, potential resource usage, return format, or edge cases such as when limit exceeds function count. It is minimal but non-misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. It is concise and well-structured with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core behavior and a key starting-point detail. However, without an output schema, it neglects to mention the return structure (e.g., map of function names to pseudocode) or behavior when limit exceeds available functions. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'limit' has a clear description in the schema. The tool description reinforces the parameter by saying 'up to limit functions', but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool decompiles functions using Hex-Rays and returns pseudocode, with a limit and starting point. It specifies 'up to limit functions' and 'Starts from the first function', which distinguishes it from single-function decompile siblings like ida_decompile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Useful for bulk analysis' implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like ida_decompile or mention when not to use. It provides a use case but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., modifying the IDB), failure conditions, or any prerequisites like IDA being open. The term 'force-create' hints at assertiveness but lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence that immediately states the action and a key use case. There is no wordiness or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It gives the purpose and a use case, but missing behavioral details (like potential DB mutation or side effects) and no mention of return values or errors makes it minimally viable rather than fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100% because the 'address' parameter has a description. The description only reinforces 'address' without adding new meaning (e.g., format expectations, alignment, or address types). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('force-create') and resource ('function at an address'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ida_analyze_function or ida_decompile. The parenthetical 'useful for undefined code regions' adds practical context without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'useful for undefined code regions' provides clear context on when to use the tool, implying it is appropriate when IDA has not recognized a function. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the 'exclusions' part of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 only states the action ('Get all cross-references') without disclosing important behavioral details such as whether results are ordered, whether the 'limit' parameter always applies, how errors are handled, or any potential side effects (though read-only is implied). This is a minimal disclosure for a tool without annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. It includes a helpful clarification in parentheses without unnecessary verbosity or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the schema's full parameter coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention the return format or how results are structured, which could be useful given the absence of an output schema. However, the tool is straightforward enough that the description likely suffices for a knowledgeable agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes both parameters (address as source address/symbol, limit as max results with default 50), so coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves cross-references FROM an address, with a parenthetical clarifying it means 'what this calls/references'. This directly distinguishes it from the sibling tool ida_xrefs_to, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the tool's usage context clear: use it to discover what an address calls or references. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the directionality implied by 'FROM' and the contrast with ida_xrefs_to in the sibling list provide sufficient guidance for most use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'check', but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or limitations. While the intent is clear, the lack of explicit disclosure leaves some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Check') and lists the specific debuggers. There is no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the scope is clear (which debuggers are available and connected), the description does not explain what the response looks like or how to interpret the connection statuses. With no output schema, this additional context would be valuable for the agent to fully understand the tool's output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema already covers everything (empty object). Baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: to check the availability and connection status of three specific debuggers (WinDbg, IDA Pro, x64dbg). This distinguishes it from sibling per-debugger status tools like windbg_status, ida_status, and x64dbg_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative per-debugger status tools. It doesn't mention that this is the high-level overview tool or when one might prefer it over more specific status commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the specific analyses performed (static APIs/strings/crypto, runtime modules/threads) and the output (report with severity ratings), but it doesn't mention whether the audit has side effects such as attaching to processes, requiring a live debugger connection, or modifying anything, which is a notable gap for an audit tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Quick w audit') and then elaborates on the approach and output. It is concise and every word earns its place, though the 'w' could be clarified. Overall, it is optimally sized and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core elements: what analysis it performs (IDA static + x64dbg runtime), what it returns (unified report with severity), and its quick nature. Missing details include prerequisites, side effects, and report format, but given the simplicity and the presence of sibling tools, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's behavior and output despite having no parameters, which is sufficient. There are no parameter details to clarify, and the description effectively covers what the tool does.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs a quick audit combining IDA static analysis (suspicious APIs, strings, crypto) and x64dbg runtime state (modules, threads), and returns a unified threat intelligence report with severity ratings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual debugger operations, though the 'w' in 'w audit' is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a usage context: a quick combined audit using all available debuggers, which contrasts with using individual IDA or x64dbg tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving comparative guidance implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing destructive behavior. It clearly states the action is permanent and that all recorded events will be deleted, which is meaningful for a dangerous operation. However, it does not mention effects on currently active sessions or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence with no redundant information. The key facts (permanence, target, and cascade effect) are front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core destructive behavior but omits any mention of return values, error behavior, or what happens if the session is currently recording. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, more contextual detail would be helpful for safe and correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and only defines session_id as an integer. The description implies that the parameter identifies the session to delete, but it does not explicitly explain its role. While the tool name and parameter name make the semantics inferable, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (permanently delete) and the specific resource scope (a session and all its recorded events). This distinguishes it from sibling session tools like session_end, session_list, or session_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as session_end, nor are prerequisites, consequences for active sessions, or post-conditions described. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the output contains and that it is 'ready to share', but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether it creates a file or returns a string, or any side effects. The absence of significant behavioral risks for an export keeps this at a moderate score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Export a full Markdown report') and immediately provides valuable context (contents and shareability). Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter export tool, the description covers the core purpose and output content sufficiently. It does not detail the exact return format (e.g., markdown string vs. file path), but given the absence of an output schema, it provides enough context for an agent to know what to expect. It is not overcomplicated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, session_id, is not described beyond its name and integer type in the schema. The description mentions 'a session' but does not clarify how to obtain the session ID or any constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaningful parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports a full Markdown report of a session, specifying the content (timeline of tool calls, key addresses, tools table) and output format. It distinctly differentiates from sibling session_* tools, none of which focus on exporting a shareable report.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies the use case is generating a shareable report, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the sibling tools, there is no direct alternative for export, so the context is clear enough for a basic score, but it lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It does not disclose matching semantics (exact vs substring, case sensitivity), whether it searches decompiled code/assembly/symbols, or what the results look like. The examples hint at acceptable input but not behavioral details, leaving significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and object. Every part is useful, and the examples are integrated efficiently without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter search tool, the description adequately explains what to pass, but it omits return value structure and matching scope. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these omissions leave moderate gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and a single 'name' string parameter, the description adds essential meaning by explaining it is a function name and offering examples. It gives concrete acceptable patterns, but does not specify constraints like wildcards or exact syntax, so it's not a perfect 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find all sessions that mention a specific function name' with concrete examples ('NtUserSetWindowPos' or 'win32k!NtUser'). This verb+resource+scope construction distinguishes it from sibling tools like session_find_address, which searches by address.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied through the description—use this when you need to locate sessions mentioning a function—but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like session_search or session_find_address. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, so it falls short of a clear 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool performs a read-only full-text search and returns context snippets, but it does not mention scope limitations (e.g., current session vs. all historical sessions), result ordering, pagination, or any performance characteristics. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action (full-text search), the scope (all recorded tool outputs), and the return value (matching sessions with context snippets). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and return type, but without an output schema or annotations, it leaves gaps about result format, matching semantics (e.g., substring vs. regex), and potential limits. For a search tool with only three parameters, the description is minimally viable but not fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does frame the parameters as search and filter criteria, which is consistent with the schema. No extra insight is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Full-text search across all recorded tool outputs.' It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling search tools like session_find_address and session_find_function, which target specific fields rather than arbitrary output content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'across all recorded tool outputs' implies a general-purpose search context, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over more targeted session tools. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving the usage guidance mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 active-session side effect but omits whether a previous session is closed, any prerequisites (e.g., a connected debugger), or what the return value or resulting state is. For a state-changing tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences: the first states the action, the second clarifies the behavioral consequence. No wasted words; front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with optional parameters and no output schema. The description provides a basic understanding but misses preconditions and side-effect details, leaving some ambiguity about interactions with other session tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters with meaningful details (e.g., 'Session name', 'Binary or dump being analyzed', 'Primary debugger'). The description adds little extra beyond emphasizing 'named', matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses explicit verb 'start' and identifies the resource as a 'new named debug session'. It also states the effect ('Sets it as the current active session for recording'), clearly distinguishing this from session_end, session_list, session_delete, and session_record.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended context is clear: start a new session to make it the active one for recording. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but for a simple start command the usage is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the assumed layout, which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe failure modes. This is a reasonable but incomplete transparency level.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and the critical layout assumption. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description could explain the return format, but it doesn't. It also lacks error-handling or edge-case details. However, for a simple decode tool with clear parameters, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds the layout definition, showing that each span is 8 bytes, which enriches the meaning of the 'count' parameter by implying the total memory size. This goes slightly beyond schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it decodes VRle::Span entries from memory, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like windbg_read_memory by focusing on structured decoding rather than raw memory access.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it never sends break-in on timeout, meaning the target may keep running after the tool returns. It also states it sends 'g' and waits for output. With no annotations provided, this disclosure carries the transparency burden. It does not cover side effects on target state or exact return behavior, but the critical safety guarantee is clearly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the key phrase 'Recommended safe continue' and explains the command, wait behavior, and timeout policy with zero filler. It is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives the core behavior but leaves out return format details, the relationship to other windbg wait/continue commands, and how the filtering parameters interact. The schema covers parameters well, but the tool's overall operational context (e.g., when it returns, what counts as output) is only partially specified. Adequate for a simple tool but with clear gaps for an 11-parameter command.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the schema itself documents all 11 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: send 'g' to cdb and wait for event/output, framing it as a 'Recommended safe continue.' This distinguishes it from a plain continue by emphasizing the safe no-break-in behavior, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools. Overall, the purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is only implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Recommended safe continue' gives a recommendation, and the description explains the safe behavior (never sending break-in on timeout). However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus windbg_continue, windbg_continue_async, or windbg_wait_for_event, nor does it state exclusions. Usage is implied 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' indicates a read-only operation, and the mention of 'pointer/symbol view' adds useful context about output style. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, behavior on invalid addresses, or the exact format of the returned data, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no redundant words or filler, and every phrase ('heap block', 'bytes', 'pointer/symbol view', 'before and after') contributes meaning. This is concise without losing necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic but adequate understanding. It conveys the tool's purpose and scope, but does not explain return values, formatting, or edge cases such as what happens when before/after exceed allocation boundaries. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, additional detail would improve completeness, but the description is minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters 'address', 'before', and 'after' are already documented clearly. The description's phrase 'before and after' aligns with the parameter names but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides full parameter definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('heap block'), and clarifies the unique scope: bytes and pointer/symbol view both before and after the block. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_heap_block_info, which likely focuses on the block itself, and windbg_read_memory, which reads arbitrary memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'before and after' implies the tool is for analyzing a heap block with surrounding context, which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like windbg_heap_block_info or windbg_read_memory, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a read-only listing operation and even reveals the underlying cdb command, but it does not describe the output format, whether the debuggee must be in a specific state, or any limitations. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose, followed by a compact note about the filter. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core function and filter. However, it does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., full module paths, names only), any required debugger state, or edge cases. Given the lack of annotations, this leaves some gaps in contextual completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'filter' parameter with a description and example. The description adds the cdb command context ('lm m <pattern>'), which is a minor enhancement beyond the schema but does not significantly alter the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List loaded modules' – a specific verb and resource. The optional name filter adds detail, distinguishing it from sibling tools like windbg_list_processes or windbg_list_threads, and the reference to the cdb command 'lm m' reinforces its specific behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via the tool name and 'List loaded modules', but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like windbg_module_info, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., a running debug session). The optional filter is mentioned but no exclusion or alternative is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool 'builds' the breakpoint, supports optional .printf logging, and implements false-branch gc, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not explain what 'safely' entails, side effects (e.g., replacing existing breakpoints), or required debugger state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 15 words, front-loaded with 'Build and set a conditional cdb breakpoint safely' – no filler, every phrase adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description, combined with the schema, provides a minimal-viable picture, but lacks usage differentiation from breakpoint siblings, prerequisites, and behavioral caveats, leaving the agent to infer critical selection details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only echoes print_expr and continue_if_false in high-level terms.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'build and set' with a clear resource: 'conditional cdb breakpoint'. It distinguishes from siblings like windbg_set_breakpoint by highlighting optional .printf logging and false-branch gc, making the tool's specialized purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (conditional breakpoints with logging/gc) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over windbg_set_breakpoint, windbg_bp_template, or windbg_set_data_breakpoint, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 that this is a hardware breakpoint, but omits critical behavioral details such as the limited number of hardware breakpoint slots (typically 4), whether existing breakpoints are overwritten, address alignment requirements, or how breakpoint persistence works. For a state-mutating debugger command, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a concise two-sentence definition. Every word earns its place, no redundancy or irrelevant detail, and it is front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool this is minimally adequate, but given no annotations or output schema, the description should mention the hardware breakpoint limitation and what the tool returns/does on success or failure. This leaves the agent with several important unknowns about the tool's runtime behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% – each parameter already has a meaningful description (size, access type, address). The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Set'), the resource ('hardware data breakpoint'), and the debugger command ('cdb ba'). It explicitly distinguishes this from ordinary software breakpoints by saying 'hardware data breakpoint', which is a distinct operation among sibling breakpoint tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the trigger condition ('read/write/execute access'), which implies it is for memory-access monitoring rather than instruction execution. However, it does not explicitly contrast with windbg_set_breakpoint or other alternatives, and gives no when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it dumps both stacks side by side, but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether shadow stack support is required, how errors are handled, or whether it operates on the current thread context. The description does not reveal enough behavioral traits to confidently predict side effects or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Dump') and efficiently conveys the core behavior and purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool, with no superfluous content or structural issues.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a clear purpose and basic behavior. However, it omits details about the output format (how 'side by side' appears), any error conditions (e.g., unsupported shadow stack), and the context (current thread). While not critically incomplete, more contextual information would help an agent use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'count' parameter, describing it as 'Number of qwords to compare' with a default of 32. The description itself does not mention the parameter or add any additional semantics, such as typical range or relationship to stack depth. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Dump' and clearly identifies the resources 'normal stack and shadow stack' and the purpose 'return-address divergence checks'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like windbg_shadow_stack (which likely dumps only the shadow stack) and windbg_call_stack, making the tool's unique role clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for quick return-address divergence checks' provides a clear context for when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternate tools or state when not to use it, such as when only the shadow stack is needed (use windbg_shadow_stack instead). This is strong but not fully explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Dump' and references the cdb command, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, whether a live debuggee is required, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a fully transparent behavioral profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and target, and includes the cdb command reference for extra clarity. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), and the description gives a minimal but clear statement of purpose. However, it does not mention what the dumped TEB contains, how it is presented, or any runtime prerequisites. Given the low complexity, this is adequate but not fully complete; a more detailed description of the output or use conditions would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly adds nothing beyond the schema since there are no parameters to clarify. It does not introduce any confusion about arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Dump', the resource 'Thread Environment Block', and the scope 'current thread'. It also references the underlying cdb command '!teb', making the purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_peb (Process Environment Block).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by naming the target (current thread's TEB) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It leaves the 'when to use' decision to the agent based on the tool's name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: "Does not send break-in on timeout," which informs the agent of a non-default timeout behavior. However, it does not explain the return format, whether it consumes output, or any side effects, leaving significant room for improvement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a critical behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear and minimal statement of purpose and one behavioral caveat. However, it omits what the output looks like and how this tool fits into the broader windbg workflow. For a simple wait tool with well-documented parameters, it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter (profile, timeout, max_lines, tail_lines) having a description. The description mentions the profile enum, but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: "Wait for exception/crash output using a preset filter profile." It specifies the action (wait), the resource (exception/crash output), and the scope (filter profile), which distinguishes it from generic wait tools like windbg_wait_for_event. The added note about not sending break-in further clarifies its specific behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for waiting on exception or crash output with filtering, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., windbg_wait_for_event) or state when not to use it. The behavioral note "Does not send break-in on timeout" hints at a difference but is not a direct usage guideline. Context is present but exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action (writing) but does not mention the destructive nature of the operation, potential side effects, or whether the debuggee must be paused. Similar to the update_drive example, this is a mutation tool with minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It contains no unnecessary words or details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with few parameters, but the description does not explain return values or failure modes. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context on the effect of the write operation, but it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats the format enum but adds little beyond the schema, such as how to specify values or address.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool writes memory, with a specific verb and resource, and lists the supported formats. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like windbg_read_memory by the write action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to write to the debuggee's memory, complementing read operations. It provides clear context for its use, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists concrete features (disassembly, xrefs, API calls, etc.) which communicates what the tool does, but it does not state whether it is read-only, the typical latency, or any side effects. The analysis nature implies non-destructive behavior, but this is not explicit, especially given the presence of mutation tools in the sibling set.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs the tool's purpose and capabilities into a compact list. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere) and the sibling tools are numerous, the description provides sufficient context for selection. It enumerates the key analysis dimensions without overspecifying. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly say it's an IDA-based tool, but the sibling list makes that inferable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers 100% of the parameter details, including the hex prefix warning and default to RIP, so the description itself adds no extra parameter meaning. This matches the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Deep function analysis') and enumerates the exact scope: disassembly, xrefs in/out, API calls, string refs, and crypto indicators. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ida_xrefs_to or ida_find_crypto, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Deep function analysis' implies when to use it (when a comprehensive overview of a function is needed), but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over more specialized tools like ida_xrefs_to or ida_disassemble. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the read-only nature implicitly and describes the output format, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or limitations of the call/jump analysis. It provides some value but is not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core function and immediately states the distinctive output, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description, combined with rich schema parameter documentation and an output schema, covers the tool's purpose and return value adequately. It lacks detail on analysis limitations, but for a disassembly tool with an output schema, this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions for both parameters are comprehensive (100% coverage), including the hex prefix warning and count usage guidance. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool disassembles instructions and specifically highlights the auto call/jump analysis, distinguishing it from siblings like ida_disassemble and windbg_disassemble. It also notes the output includes categorized CALL/JMP lists, making its purpose precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for disassembly with control-flow analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks guidance on exclusions or when to prefer plain disassemblers, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 one useful behavioral trait: run_to 'auto-cleans the BP'. However, it does not mention other potential side effects, whether commands block, or what happens to the debuggee state on pause/resume. This is only partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: a compact list of actions followed by a focused tip. Both sentences provide distinct value, and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schematic descriptions and output schema already cover most operational details, so the description need not repeat them. The description provides the core purpose and a useful tip, but it omits any statement about how it relates to the swarm of sibling debugger tools or general side effects. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a well-schema'd tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including enums, defaults, and examples. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, except for the auto-clean tip, which relates to action behavior rather than parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Control execution: run, pause, single-step, run-to-address.' This specifies the verb and resource and enumerates the main actions. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the many sibling debugger control tools (e.g., windbg_continue, windbg_step_in), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit alternative: 'Use run_to instead of breakpoint(action='set')+run for one-shot stops (auto-cleans the BP).' This gives a concrete when-to-use recommendation that references another tool. Broader guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools is absent, but the tip is a valuable usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists start addresses and DLL exports when applicable, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention whether an IDB must be open or describe any potential limitations or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is concise and structured effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter read operation, the description is adequate. It indicates the tool works on the current binary's entry points, but does not explicitly state the return format or any prerequisites, which are minor gaps for this simplicity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is effectively complete. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but with 0 params the baseline is 4, and no further explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists binary entry points with start addresses and DLL exports, using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ida_exports by focusing on entry points.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ida_exports or ida_functions. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and adds a condition about DLLs/EXEs with exports, implying empty results for binaries without exports. However, it does not disclose return format, side effects, or whether the export table is sorted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence with the key action and resource front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is mostly sufficient. It explains what is retrieved and when it applies. The lack of return format details is mitigated by the simplicity of the operation, though it could mention if exports are names/addresses.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters, so there is no need to document parameter semantics. The schema is empty, and baseline for zero-param tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'export table', distinguishing it from sibling tools like ida_imports and ida_entry_points. The parenthetical clarifies the applicability to DLLs/EXEs with exports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the resource name is self-evident, it does not mention that ida_imports or ida_entry_points are for different tables, nor provide context for when exports are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-oriented behavior of listing functions and the optional pagination/filtering, but does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating or describe the return format or potential error conditions. This is acceptable but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two clear sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then mentioning key supported features. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, three-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage, the description is sufficient for the agent to understand what it does and how to use it. It doesn't explain return value formatting, but the purpose is obvious. Slight improvement could be made by noting typical use cases or relationship to siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents all three parameters (limit, offset, pattern) with descriptions and defaults, so the high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'name filtering' aligns with the pattern parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists functions in the binary, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ida_disassemble or ida_decompile by focusing on enumeration, and mentions pagination and filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a listing/filtering use case but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other IDA listing tools such as ida_names or ida_entry_points, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria. There is no alternative guidance, only an implied purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential dependencies (e.g., whether IDA must have a loaded binary), return format, or any failure modes. It is not misleading, but adds limited behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence, with no filler or redundant details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its main option. It does not describe the return format, but for a straightforward getter, this is acceptable. The sibling context reinforces that it is one of many IDA inspection tools, and the description is sufficient for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'module' parameter already described as 'Optional DLL name filter (e.g. 'kernel32')'. The tool description restates this as 'optionally filtered by DLL name', adding little new meaning. The example in the schema is preserved, but there is no additional semantic enrichment beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the import table with an optional DLL name filter. The verb 'Get' and resource 'import table' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from similar tools like ida_exports and ida_names by explicitly targeting imports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when import information is needed, and the optional filter parameter indicates a scoping use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., ida_exports for exports) or any exclusions, so guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the read operation and output format, implying a non-destructive read, but does not mention failure modes (e.g., invalid address), endianness, or any prerequisite such as IDA being active. Basic transparency is present, but richer context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear, and concise sentence that packs the essential purpose ('read raw bytes') and output ('hex+ASCII dump') without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the action, the address parameter, and the output format. It does not explain how size is limited or what happens on invalid input, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'address' and 'size' described. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, such as how size interacts with output or default behavior. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read raw bytes at an address') and the output format ('hex+ASCII dump'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ida_disassemble (which decodes instructions) and ida_decompile (which produces pseudocode) by focusing specifically on raw byte reads.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its usage (reading raw memory content) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as ida_disassemble or windbg_read_memory. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so guidance is only implicit through the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'search', and wildcard support is disclosed. However, it does not detail search scope (e.g., all memory vs. module) or potential performance implications. The optional module parameter is only in the schema, not the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence followed by three concise examples. It front-loads the core action and every word contributes value. No filler or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a simple search tool: purpose is clear, pattern syntax is exemplified, and the schema covers parameter details. An output schema exists (though not shown), so return format is presumably covered. The only minor omission is explicit guidance on when to use this tool over similar search functions, but this is not critical for a straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions for both 'pattern' and 'module'. The tool description adds extra examples ('CC', '0F 31', 'E9 ?? ?? ?? ??') but these largely duplicate the schema's own examples. It does not introduce additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search memory for a byte pattern with ?? wildcards.' It includes a specific verb (search), resource (memory), and pattern detail (wildcards). Examples like 'CC' (INT3) and 'E9 ?? ?? ?? ??' (JMP rel32) further clarify the intent and distinguish it from sibling tools like 'search_strings' or 'ida_search'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the examples imply usage for finding specific instruction opcodes or byte signatures. This provides some implied context, though no direct comparison or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the nature of outputs (tool usage differences, call counts, similarity %), implying a read-only comparison. However, it omits details like error behavior when sessions are invalid, how sessions are identified, or any side effects. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists specific outputs in a compact list. Every word contributes information, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lists the types of comparisons performed, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the return format, how similarity is calculated, whether session IDs must be from existing sessions, or what happens if sessions are missing. Given the tool's simplicity, the coverage is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only vaguely refers to 'two sessions' without mapping to session_id_a and session_id_b, nor does it indicate where to get these IDs or their format. The schema itself is simple (two integers), but the description adds no value in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Compare') and a clear resource ('two sessions'), and enumerates exactly what the comparison yields: which tools were used in one session but not the other, call count differences, and similarity percentage. This distinguishes it from all sibling session_* tools, making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a clear context: use this when you need to diff two sessions. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but none of the sibling session tools perform comparison, so the usage context is clear. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the intended scenario is obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 states the tool lists sessions with stats, which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose ordering, scope (e.g., current debugger vs all), or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks deeper behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It effectively conveys the operation and the included stats, earning a high score for conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and returned data. Minor gaps such as ordering and default scope prevent a perfect score, but it is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the only parameter 'limit' fully described as 'Max sessions to return (default 20)'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists recent debug sessions and specifies the included stats (duration, tool calls, debugger). The verb 'list' and resource 'recent debug sessions' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like session_search and session_stats by focusing on listing rather than searching or aggregating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it is for listing recent sessions but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as session_search or session_stats. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation set is empty, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses that the process is paused on attach, which is a key side effect. However, it does not mention prerequisites such as administrative privileges or what happens to the current debugging session.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and avoids redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple attach operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information to understand the tool's function and primary side effect. It could add a note about detaching or privilege requirements, but the essentials are covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'pid' parameter with the description 'Target process ID'. The tool description reinforces this by saying 'by PID' but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Attach cdb to a running process by PID' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_start_executable and windbg_open_dump, which target different scenarios.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for an already-running process by PID but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like windbg_start_executable or windbg_open_dump. The context is understandable but lacks explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states default behavior (N instructions at an address, current IP default) and the function mode, but does not mention side effects, output format, or prerequisites. As a read-only disassembly operation, the lack of explicit side effects is acceptable, but more context (e.g., requires an active debuggee) would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds useful information about modes and the underlying cdb command. No redundant or extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's primary modes (count-based and whole-function), the default address, and differentiates from backward disassembly. While it omits output format details, the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this adequately complete for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: all three parameters have descriptions. The description adds minimal information beyond the schema, mostly repeating the 'function=true' behavior and default count. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Disassemble code forward.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling windbg_disassemble_back by indicating direction. It also mentions the function=true mode, adding scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the forward direction and the count/function options, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like windbg_disassemble_back or other disassembly tools. It provides behavioral options but no exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 suggests a read-only inspection via the word 'inspect', and mentions that empty args lists all handles, which indicates a harmless diagnostic. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or mention any prerequisites (e.g., kernel debugging required), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every word adds value and there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple wrapper around a single debugger command with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to invoke it, and the meaning of empty args. It could mention the nature of the output or when it is appropriate, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'args' parameter with an example, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful clarification that empty args lists all handles, which goes beyond the schema by explaining behavior when the parameter is omitted. This additional semantic value supports a score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs !handle to inspect kernel handles, using a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('kernel handles'). It distinguishes itself from generic run_command or other windbg tools by specifying the exact purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only added detail is that empty args lists all handles, which is parameter behavior rather than usage context. It does not mention when to use !handle instead of other handle-related tools like get_handles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently enumerates the operations performed (address eval, symbol lookup, !address, !heap, memory reads, vtable detection, optional span decode) and hints that it is a bundled read-only analysis. It does not cover failure modes or output format, but is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, dense, well-structured sentence with zero filler. The core purpose ('One-call object/heap context') is front-loaded, and all additional details are relevant and compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a reasonable map of what the tool does and what to expect, including optional behaviors. It lacks explicit dependencies (e.g., requiring an active debug session) but these are conventional within the windbg_* sibling family, so completeness is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces parameter meanings indirectly (e.g., before/after → 'bytes/pointers around', include_vtable → 'potential vtable', span_count → 'optional VRle::Span decode') but adds no new information beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the tool's function as a composite object/heap context provider, listing specific constituent operations (address eval, symbol, !address, !heap, etc.) that distinguish it from single-purpose siblings. However, the verb is implied ('one-call') rather than explicit, preventing a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a convenience use case (perform multiple inspection steps in a single call) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like windbg_run_command or dedicated tools. No exclusions or explicit alternative references are provided, making usage guidance only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Open' but does not explain side effects such as whether the current debug session is replaced, whether windbg must already be running, or what state the debugger enters after opening the dump. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool that changes the debugging context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. The description efficiently states the purpose and points to a complementary tool, making it easy to parse and act on.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main action and a suggested next step. It lacks deeper context about session impact, but given the low complexity, it is fairly complete. A score of 4 reflects that it could mention prerequisites (e.g., windbg running) but is otherwise adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter (described as 'Path to .dmp file'). The description adds no additional parameter info beyond what the schema already provides, which is adequate. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: opening a Windows crash dump (.dmp) for post-mortem analysis. It uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('Windows crash dump'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like windbg_start_executable or windbg_attach by specifying the post-mortem context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context: for post-mortem analysis of .dmp files, and specifically suggests combining with windbg_analyze_crash for the analysis step. This implies when to use it (when a dump file is available) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like attaching to a live process or starting an executable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Dump' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, output format, or prerequisites (e.g., a running process). It provides basic transparency but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and resource, with the underlying cdb command included for clarity. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context (current process, PEB) and the cdb command equivalent. However, it does not specify the return format or when to prefer this over windbg_teb, so it is not a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema already covers everything. There is nothing additional for the description to explain, so the baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool dumps the Process Environment Block of the current process, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from the sibling windbg_teb by specifying PEB rather than TEB, and the 'current process' scope is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like windbg_teb or windbg_run_command. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read memory' signals a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., invalid address), return structure, or side effects beyond the basic read intent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and lists the format options. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with fully described parameters in the schema, the description is sufficiently complete. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the returned bytes are implied by the tool name and format choices; no additional return semantics are necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter (address, fmt, count) having a descriptive definition. The description adds the format list, but this is already captured by the fmt enum in the schema, so it provides no additional semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read'), clearly identifies the resource ('memory'), and enumerates the supported formats (byte/word/dword/qword/ascii/unicode/pointer), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_write_memory or windbg_search_memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies a memory inspection use case but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. There are no exclusion criteria or context triggers, leaving the agent to infer applicability among a large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the exact command and that force=true discards cached symbols, but does not mention side effects (e.g., time cost, need for an active target) or what the return value looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that front-load the main action and then explain the parameter. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it omits any note about prerequisites or expected output, though the simplicity of the operation makes this less critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the force parameter as passing /f to .reload. The description adds behavioral meaning by stating that force discards cached symbols, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to set it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Reload') and resource ('symbols'), and clarifies the underlying command (cdb '.reload'). It distinguishes itself from related symbol tools like windbg_set_symbol_path by focusing on the reload action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like changing symbol paths or starting a debug session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds context about the output file path and the command used, but does not disclose whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the directory is created, or any side effects on current breakpoints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the operation without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient: it explains what is persisted, how, and where. However, it could note whether the name becomes a filename with specific path/extension implications, but that is minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the single 'name' parameter documented as 'Breakpoint set name'. The description adds no additional constraints or format guidance for the name, so it scores at the baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Persist' and clearly states the resource ('current breakpoints'), the mechanism ('cdb .bpcmds'), and the destination ('.windbg_mcp_breakpoints/<name>.cmd'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_list_breakpoints and windbg_load_breakpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (to save breakpoints) but does not provide explicit guidance on scenarios or alternatives. It does not mention pairing with windbg_load_breakpoints or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the kinds of analysis performed (calls, string refs, xrefs, decompile), which gives useful context, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it may be resource-intensive, or what the response format will be.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful usage hint. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with one well-documented parameter, and the description conveys its role. However, since there is no output schema, the description would benefit from indicating what the returned analysis contains or how it is structured. It is adequate for selection but not fully informative for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter 'address' is described as 'Function address or name,' which is semantically sufficient. The description adds no extra parameter details, but the schema already provides the needed information, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Deep function analysis' and enumerates specific outputs: 'calls, string refs, xrefs, decompile.' This distinguishes it from narrower siblings like ida_call_tree, ida_find_string_refs, and ida_decompile, making its role as a consolidated starting point clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Best starting point' provides direct guidance on when to use this tool: as an initial deep dive into a function. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 return format ('nested tree') and the recursion depth behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention how recursive cycles are handled or warn about potentially large outputs. The schema provides depth hints, but the description itself could add more caveats.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences, the first front-loaded with the primary action, the second adding usage context. No unnecessary wording. The minor typo ('w' instead of 'the') is a negligible flaw in an otherwise compact and effective description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only two parameters, both documented in the schema, and no output schema. The description explains the return concept ('nested tree') and the use case, but lacks details on the exact tree structure (e.g., whether nodes are addresses or names) and how to interpret depth limits or potential performance issues. For a tool without an output schema, this is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes both parameters: 'address' as 'Root function address or name' and 'depth' with default and max notes. The description only restates 'from a function' and 'up to `depth` levels', adding no new semantic information. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Build a recursive call tree from a function up to `depth` levels.' It specifies the resource (a function) and the output (a nested tree of called functions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ida_decompile or ida_xrefs_from, which have different purposes. The minor typo 'w execution flow' does not obscure the intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context: 'Useful for understanding execution flow or finding the main logic.' This tells an agent when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic purpose without detailing return format, error conditions, or read-only guarantees. 'Always call first' is usage guidance, not behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, using only two short sentences to convey purpose and usage priority. Every word earns its place with no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat adequate but lacks details about the exact nature of 'binary info' and behavior when IDA is not connected. Given no annotations or output schema, a bit more context would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, earning a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks IDA Pro connectivity and retrieves binary info. The phrase 'Always call first' distinguishes it from other IDA tools by establishing it as the initial prerequisite check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Always call first' provides explicit temporal guidance for when to use this tool, implying it should precede other IDA operations. It does not name specific alternatives but establishes a clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation but does not state what happens if the struct is not found, whether any resolution/preprocessing is performed, or the exact response format beyond listing fields. This is a minimal but not comprehensive disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a parenthetical listing the returned data. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (name, members, offsets, sizes). The input schema handles parameter documentation, and no additional behavioral context is needed for this straightforward read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the 'name' parameter with a clear description and examples ('_EPROCESS', 'HEAP'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond restating that the name refers to a struct, so it provides no value beyond the schema's baseline coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get struct definition from IDA's type library' with specific details on the returned content (name, members, offsets, sizes). This uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like ida_get_type by focusing specifically on struct definitions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving struct definitions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or point to other tools like ida_get_type for non-struct types, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 restart action but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., killing processes, losing state, requiring permissions), which is significant for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and object, includes examples, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers purpose and parameter adequately. However, it omits behavioral consequences of restarting, which is important for a management action with potential side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes server_name with 100% coverage, and the description enriches it by listing valid server names (windbg / ida / x64dbg / orchestrator / sessions), providing concrete value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Restart') and resource ('MCO sub-server'), lists valid server names, and clearly distinguishes from status/list siblings like mco_gateway_status and mco_list_servers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States the precondition ('crashed') and the action, implying use when a sub-server is crashed. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It states the deletion action and scope, but does not disclose irreversibility, default behavior when the optional 'spec' is omitted, or any side effects. Minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb, no redundancy, and directly states the operation. Excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not clarify what happens when 'spec' is omitted (even though optional), which could lead to misuse. A small but notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the 'spec' parameter well-documented (BP id, range, or '*'). The description adds little beyond restating the scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'breakpoints', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like set/enable/disable breakpoints. Mentioning the underlying cdb 'bc' command adds precision and confirms the exact operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The action and scope are clear: delete 'one or all' breakpoints. It gives enough context for an agent to know when to use it, but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives. The simplicity makes implied usage sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description clearly states it is a list operation (read-only) and maps to the cdb 'bl' command, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose any behavioral details such as whether it requires a running target, what the output format looks like, or whether it includes disabled breakpoints. It's adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the verb and resource, with a helpful parenthetical referencing the underlying cdb command. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a very simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description tells the agent what it does but does not explain the return format or any prerequisites like needing an active debugger session. For a complete beginner, it may be enough, but it lacks details about what 'all configured breakpoints' means in practice (e.g., whether it includes disabled ones).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage vacuously. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because there is nothing to explain. The description does not need to add parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'all configured breakpoints', and mentions the underlying cdb command 'bl' for disambiguation. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling breakpoint-related tools like windbg_set_breakpoint or windbg_clear_breakpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended usage is implied by the description: you use this tool to view breakpoints. However, there are no explicit instructions on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active debugger session). It doesn't mislead, but it provides no explicit guidance beyond the obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention a key behavior: that existing breakpoints can be cleared first via the 'clear_existing' option. However, it does not disclose what happens when clear_existing is false (e.g., do breakpoints merge or get replaced?), failure modes (e.g., if the saved set does not exist), or any side effects on the current debugging session.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It earns its place by being efficient and directly informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not mention what happens after loading (e.g., confirmation, immediate effect) or error cases, and since there is no output schema, the description could better set expectations. Still, it covers the essential behavior for a straightforward restoration tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (name and clear_existing) with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'Optionally clears existing breakpoints first' essentially paraphrases the clear_existing schema description, adding minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's specific action: restoring a previously saved breakpoint set. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_save_breakpoints, windbg_set_breakpoint, and windbg_list_breakpoints by using the verb 'restore' on the resource 'saved breakpoint set'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to restore a previously saved breakpoint set. It also notes the optional clear_existing behavior, giving a sense of the operation's effect. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when you might instead use windbg_set_breakpoint to add breakpoints individually.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting. It discloses the primary behavior (set breakpoint, log IP/value, optional stack, continue) but omits potential side effects such as breakpoint persistence, interaction with existing hardware breakpoints, or debugger state changes. This is partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences deliver the essential behavior and a practical rationale. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the core functionality well but lacks context about return values, how the logged output is presented, whether the breakpoint is persistent, and how it coexists with other breakpoints. Given the complexity of debugger tooling, these gaps are noticeable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mentioning 'optional stack' which aligns with log_stack, but does not introduce new semantic details beyond the schema's own descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Set a hardware data breakpoint that logs IP, watched value, optional stack, then continues.' This is a specific verb+resource+behavior, distinguishing it from generic breakpoint tools by emphasizing the logging and continue behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Avoids hand-written ba/.printf escaping' implies using this tool instead of manually crafting debugger commands, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving room for ambiguity among similar breakpoint tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the agent runs a ReAct loop, calls multiple debugging skills, and returns findings, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether it might write or patch memory), runtime expectations, or any safety limitations, leaving a transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with 'AUTONOMOUS ANALYSIS.' It conveys purpose, behavioral model, and usage guidance in two sentences plus a USE WHEN/DO NOT USE section, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what to expect behaviorally. An output schema exists, so return format is covered elsewhere. However, given its autonomous multi-step nature, a note about potential side effects or runtime length would improve completeness, but the current coverage is nearly sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have complete descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), including the max_steps guidance for focused vs. exploration scenarios. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs 'plan, execute, and report' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'debugging goal.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the many single-operation sibling tools by stating 'DO NOT USE for single specific operations — call the dedicated tool instead,' preventing confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit USE WHEN conditions with concrete examples ('find unpacking loop', 'identify anti-debug') and an explicit DO NOT USE condition with a pointer to use dedicated tools. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool, instead referring to a category ('dedicated tool'), which is slightly less concrete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately states the core action ('Set breakpoints on all APIs in a category') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it adds to existing breakpoints, overwrites them, or how it handles failures or partial successes. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the benefit. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple one-parameter tool. The description covers the purpose and efficiency rationale, and the output schema presumably handles return-value documentation. It could mention the prerequisite of an active debugger session, but the tool name and sibling context make that reasonably implicit. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed enum description for 'group' listing specific APIs per category. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Set breakpoints on all APIs in a category at once.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from single-breakpoint setters like windbg_set_breakpoint or breakpoint, making the tool's unique bulk capability evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Saves many calls vs setting each manually' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when you need breakpoints on a whole API category. It implies an alternative (manual per-API setting) and explicitly highlights the efficiency benefit, though it does not mention exclusions like conditional or data breakpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or what the output format will be. 'Export' could imply file creation, but that is not clarified. Lacking these details, the agent cannot fully anticipate behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two crisp sentences. The first states the action and the specific data items, the second offers a usage suggestion. No wasted words; it front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, no-parameter tool, the description lists all output fields and a usage scenario. It could mention the return format (e.g., JSON) or any preconditions (e.g., IDA database must be loaded), but these are not critical for selection and invocation. The description is adequate for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters, which would be unnecessary. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it exports a comprehensive IDA database summary and enumerates the exact fields included (file path, hashes, counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ida_functions or ida_segments that focus on specific aspects, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear usage context: 'Good for a session overview.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would strengthen the guidance. Still, the intended scenario is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently explains that the tool compares instruction sequences, calculates a similarity percentage, and shows added/removed operations. This is substantive behavioral context, though it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or prerequisites, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core action and outputs, and the second provides a relevant use case. There is no redundancy or wasted words, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (two hex addresses, no output schema), and the description adequately covers the behavior and expected return content (similarity percentage, added/removed operations). It also provides a real-world scenario. It lacks explicit details about error handling or prerequisites, but is sufficiently complete for this tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'address_a' and 'address_b' have descriptions: 'Hex address of first/second function'), so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value by framing the parameters as functions to diff, but it does not add format or syntax details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Binary diff'), resource ('two functions'), and context ('in IDA Pro'), and lists concrete outputs (similarity percentage, added/removed operations). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'ida_diff_functions', which may serve a similar purpose, so it misses the sibling differentiation required for a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by stating 'Useful for patch diffing between clean and infected binaries,' which tells the agent when to apply the tool. It does not mention alternatives or explicit exclusions, so it falls short of the 'when/when-not/alternatives' level for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Show' implies a read-only operation, and the description lists what information is returned, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, auth requirements, or whether the operation might have performance implications (e.g., pinging servers).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient detail about the return content (running/stopped, PID, tool count, uptime). It lacks only a more explicit distinction from sibling tools, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no input is needed, and it does not need to explain parameter details because there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('status of all MCO sub-servers'), listing key fields (running/stopped, PID, tool count, uptime). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mco_list_servers or mco_status by focusing on sub-server status details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies a monitoring/status-checking use case, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. With sibling tools like mco_status and mco_list_servers available, some additional guidance on when to choose this over others would be helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, and it states the informational output (description, tool counts). However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, error behavior, or ordering. For a simple no-parameter list tool, this is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the action and output. No redundant filler or restatement of the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description succinctly communicates the return content (description and tool counts). It is sufficient for the agent to understand what will happen. Minor gap: it doesn't mention what happens if no servers are configured, but that's not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none; nothing further is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'all configured MCO sub-servers', while specifying the output includes 'description and tool counts'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mco_status or mco_gateway_status, which focus on status rather than enumerating sub-servers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for discovering/enumerating configured servers, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as mco_status or mco_gateway_status. The usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return values and the fact that it analyzes an address in IDA, but does not mention whether IDA must be running, potential side effects, or error behavior. Some context is added, but more depth could improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load the purpose, specify outputs, and give a clear usage hint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and return values adequately. It could detail prerequisites (e.g., IDA Pro running) but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds the insight that the address comes from dynamic analysis context, but the schema already describes the address and context parameters sufficiently. No extra parameter semantics needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool takes an address from WinDbg or x64dbg and analyzes it in IDA Pro, enumerating specific outputs. This distinguishes it from IDA-only tools like ida_decompile or ida_analyze_function and debugger-only tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Use when you have a suspicious address from dynamic analysis,' providing clear usage context. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses auto-categorization, broad scope, and performance characteristics, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential side effects. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no wasted words. Every phrase adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and the tool is simple (one optional param), the description covers key aspects: scope, categorization, use case, and performance caveat. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke properly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains min_length's tradeoff ('Lower = more matches but more noise'). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('readable strings in ALL loaded modules'), and a unique feature (auto-categorization). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ida_strings (IDA-specific) and search_pattern (pattern search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides concrete use case ('Great for IOCs and hardcoded URLs/paths') and a performance caveat ('May be slow on large processes'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the action ('End') and note-saving behavior. It does not disclose whether ending is reversible, if it triggers cleanup, or any side effects. Lacks the depth needed for full transparency, though it at least states the core operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and avoids unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. Minor ambiguity remains about session lifecycle (e.g., can it be resumed?), but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides for 'notes' and 'session_id'; it merely mirrors the schema's intent without clarifying details like optionality or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('End') and resource ('session'), with clear scope ('current or specified'), which precisely conveys the tool's action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like session_delete and session_start by indicating a finishing operation rather than creation or removal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this to end a session (current or specified) and save notes. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios given the tool's simplicity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that it parses crash components but does not state whether it is read-only, whether a live session or dump is required, or what the return format is. For a parse operation, safety is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and usage context adequately. It omits the return structure, which is a minor gap for an analysis tool, but the essentials are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description adds no parameter details because none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool parses ASAN crash context, enumerating specific components (exception record, context record, call stack). This distinguishes it from generic crash analysis tools like windbg_analyze_crash or windbg_crash_triage by emphasizing ASAN-instrumented binaries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides a usage condition: 'Use when debugging ASAN-instrumented binaries.' This is clear but does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does hint at behaviors via template names (logging vs. stopping), but it does not disclose side effects such as whether execution halts for logging templates, persistence, or enabling/disabling. This is partial 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with clear front-loading of the purpose. Each template listed earns its place, and the wording is compact with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a rich schema covering all parameters, the high-level template overview is sufficient for agent selection and initial invocation. No output schema means no return-value obligations. It lacks detailed behavioral nuance but is complete enough given the schema support.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying what the template parameter does (log this/args, log expression, etc.) and maps to the enum options, which the schema only labels as 'Breakpoint template'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific action ('Set a breakpoint') from an 'AI-friendly template' and enumerates distinct behavioral templates (log, stop on signed-negative, pointer range, stack log), clearly distinguishing this tool from generic breakpoint setters like windbg_set_breakpoint or conditional breakpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for template-based breakpoints but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling breakpoint tools (e.g., windbg_set_conditional_bp) or mention any exclusions. The listing of template types gives context but lacks direct alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key non-destructive trait ('without deleting it'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose reversibility, effects on breakpoint ranges, or error behavior, leaving gaps in expected behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Disable'), and contains no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential action and a non-destructive guarantee. It lacks explicit notes on re-enabling or batch effects, but given the simplicity and full schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes 'spec' as 'BP id, range, or *'' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Disable a breakpoint without deleting it' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like enable_breakpoint and clear_breakpoint by emphasizing non-deletion, and references the cdb 'bd' command for additional clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you want to temporarily suspend a breakpoint rather than permanently remove it. The phrase 'without deleting it' provides a clear context and a negative constraint, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with enable/clear tools, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 mutating action (re-enable) and references the underlying cdb command, but does not describe side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the breakpoint is already enabled. Basic transparency, but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action, the target, and the underlying command in under 15 words, achieving maximum efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior. It would benefit from mentioning the effect on breakpoint listing or confirmation behavior, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the 'spec' parameter as 'BP id, range, or '*'', covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Re-enable' and names the resource 'previously disabled breakpoint', clearly distinguishing it from set/disable/clear breakpoint tools. Mentioning the cdb command 'be' adds precision and confirms the exact operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'previously disabled breakpoint' implies the tool should be used only after a breakpoint has been disabled, providing contextual guidance. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for a simple toggle operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It accurately states that the tool evaluates a cdb expression and maps to the '?' command, but it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., expressions with assignments) or the format of the return value. This is adequate for a simple evaluation tool but lacks deeper behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and mapping to cdb '?', and the second lists example use cases. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-purpose tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and gives examples of usage. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the obvious nature of an evaluation tool, though it could have explicitly mentioned that the result is returned. Overall, the description conveys the essential information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'expression' parameter with a description and examples. The tool description adds a bit more context by mentioning the cdb '?' command and example use cases, but it does not significantly extend the schema's explanation. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Evaluate a cdb expression (cdb '?')'. It explicitly names the resource (cdb expressions) and action (evaluate), and lists concrete use cases (arithmetic, symbol lookup, casting). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_run_command, which executes arbitrary debugger commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool by mentioning 'useful for arithmetic, symbol lookup, and casting'. It implies this is for evaluating expressions rather than running arbitrary debugger commands, which aligns with the tool's focused scope. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosure. It explains the search algorithm and the fallback logic for heap-range discovery, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits any mention of result enrichment (max_hits), timeout behavior, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, compact, front-loaded with the purpose, then the secondary behavior. No redundant material.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not mention what the returned candidates look like or how enrichment works. It explains the search modes but leaves important execution details (e.g., region_timeout, max_hits, require_first_qword effects) to the schema, which is partially acceptable but not fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining how heap_start/heap_length select a specific range and how their omission triggers automatic heap-range parsing, which goes beyond the schema descriptions. It also clarifies that the search criterion is the first qword of the heap object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Find heap object candidates whose first qword equals a vtable pointer'), making the core function immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling windbg_find_vtable, but the qualifier 'whose first qword equals' is precise enough to convey the intended scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on the two operating modes—explicit range via heap_start+heap_length versus automatic heap-range discovery from !address -f:Heap—which helps agents decide parameter choices. It does not contrast with alternative tools like windbg_find_vtable or windbg_heap, so no explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It lists what will be inspected, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or the format/volume of memory before/after. It implies a read-only operation without explicitly stating safety characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. It could detail the return format or the extent of 'memory before/after', but the core intent is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single parameter with 100% coverage ('Heap block address to inspect'). The description adds the ASAN crash context but does not add semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Inspect') and the resource ('a specific heap block') with concrete details (size, flags, neighbors, memory before/after). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_heap and windbg_heap_neighbors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a specific use case: 'Use with ASAN crash addresses to understand overflow context.' This gives clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Show detailed info' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not disclose any prerequisites (e.g., module must be loaded) or whether symbol loading is triggered. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys verb, resource, and output details without unnecessary words. It is perfectly scoped for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a clear idea of what the tool does and what output to expect (paths, version, symbols). It could mention return formatting or error conditions, but for a simple read-only info tool, this is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the `name` parameter beyond what the schema already states (module name without extension). It neither helps nor hinders.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('detailed info for one module'), listing concrete contents (paths, version, symbols). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool `windbg_list_modules` which lists modules, by specifying 'one module'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'one module' implies the user already knows the specific module name, and thus distinguishes from listing all modules. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative `windbg_list_modules` or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 side effect of reloading symbols and gives a concrete path example, but it doesn't mention whether the path replaces or appends to the existing path, whether it persists across sessions, or potential network/time implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and the underlying command, the second gives a practical example. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool, the description covers the core behavior and a typical value. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active debug session), reset/default behavior, or how it differs from windbg_reload_symbols, but it is still largely self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes 'path' merely as 'Symbol path', but the description adds the expected cdb symbol path format and a concrete example including the symbol server and local cache. This is valuable semantic context beyond the schema's minimal description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Set' with the resource 'symbol search path' and clarifies the underlying cdb command '.sympath'. It also notes that symbols are reloaded, distinguishing it from sibling tools like windbg_reload_symbols or generic command execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like windbg_reload_symbols or running '.sympath' via windbg_run_command. The example for the public store implies a common use case but doesn't provide decision guidance or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation (dump) and the mechanism (using dps @ssp), but does not explain potential failure modes (e.g., when CET is not enabled), output format, or any side effects. It is adequate for a simple read-like operation but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no filler. The method and usage condition are presented immediately. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description effectively conveys purpose and usage context. It does not describe the return value format, but for a simple dump operation this is not a critical omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both 'count' and 'address' already described. The description's mention of '@ssp' aligns with the schema default but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Dump') and resource ('CET hardware shadow stack'), with the specific command method ('dps @ssp'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like windbg_shadow_stack_compare or windbg_shadow_stack_return, which imply different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear usage context: 'Useful when HW-enforced stack protection is enabled.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the search capability and the optional switch, but does not mention potential side effects such as changing the active debugger thread context, performance implications of scanning all stacks, or output format. This is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the primary function and the optional behavior. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's core purpose, with no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and highlights the key optional behavior. However, it does not mention return values or how to interpret the search results, nor does it elaborate on the switch side effects. Given the schema coverage, this is complete enough, but a bit more context about output would push it to 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'regex/module/SP/address,' which maps to the 'pattern' and 'sp' parameters already documented in the schema. No additional meaning is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs and resources: 'Search all thread stacks for a regex/module/SP/address' and 'optionally switch to the matching thread.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_thread_stacks (which likely only displays stacks) and windbg_switch_thread (which directly switches without searching).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find a thread whose stack matches a pattern and possibly switch to it. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the search-and-switch combination is sufficiently distinctive to imply usage relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the primary behavior (switching debugger context) but does not mention prerequisites, side effects on subsequent commands, or error conditions. It is transparent about the action but lacks additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states everything essential. No filler or repetition. It earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficient for correct use. It could mention the alternative windbg_switch_thread_by_tid for completeness, but it already tells the agent where to get the index, making it adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'index.' The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, but the parameter description already specifies it is a thread index from windbg_list_threads. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: 'Switch debugger context to a specific thread index.' It uses a clear verb+resource pair and distinguishes from the sibling tool windbg_switch_thread_by_tid by specifying 'index' rather than TID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description and parameter schema ('from windbg_list_threads') imply the tool should be used after listing threads to obtain an index. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 underlying cdb command and accepted input formats, but does not mention side effects (e.g., changes the active thread context for subsequent commands), prerequisites, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes necessary format details. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and input formats adequately. It could be slightly more complete by noting the context switch effect on subsequent commands, but given the low complexity, it is mostly sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete accepted formats ('43110', '0x43110', 'pid.tid') beyond what the schema provides, clarifying the expected string inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Switch debugger context') and the specific resource/mechanism ('by OS thread id using cdb ~~[tid]s'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling `windbg_switch_thread` by explicitly targeting OS thread IDs rather than another type of thread identifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies when to use this tool: when you have an OS thread ID, e.g. from stacks or the 'Id: pid.tid' format. It gives accepted value formats, but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion criteria. Clear context, no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Attempt', which hints at possible failure, but it does not explain side effects, what happens if already connected, or whether the operation is safe (e.g., read-only vs mutating). This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose and a usage condition. Every part earns its place, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-argument connection tool, the description covers the core action and the prerequisite condition. It does not describe failure modes or return values, but the presence of an output schema may fill that gap, and the tool is simple enough that the description is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adequately covers the tool's purpose without needing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (re)connect and a clear resource (running x64dbg instance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x64dbg_launch (which starts a new instance) and x64dbg_status (which checks status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides a 'USE WHEN' condition: x64dbg is already running but Claude is not connected. This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add the behavioral detail that it 'Waits for the AI Agent plugin to become connectable after launch,' which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential failures or side effects, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes the usage condition and a key behavior without any unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the purpose, when to use it, and the wait behavior, which is sufficient for a simple launch tool. An output schema exists, so return details don't need describing. It could mention failure modes, but it's still fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description only mentions 'optional target EXE,' which doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Launch x64dbg debugger' with a specific verb and resource, and notes the optional target EXE. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like x64dbg_connect and x64dbg_status by focusing on starting the debugger.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states 'USE WHEN: x64dbg is not yet running and you need to start a debug session,' which gives a clear condition for use. It doesn't name an alternative tool, but the condition implies if already running, another tool would be needed, so it is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies what information is returned (address, original/patched bytes) but does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation or mention any edge cases or side effects. Given the simple nature of the tool, the disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, the first stating the action and scope, the second detailing the output. Every word contributes meaning, with no unnecessary verbiage or repetition of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for the simplicity of the operation, and no further context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the description naturally adds no parameter-level detail. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4, which is appropriate here since there is nothing further to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all patches applied to the IDA database'), and details the output fields (address, original byte value, patched byte value). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like ida_patch_bytes that modify patches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by the name and description—use this when you need to see existing patches. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor exclusions for cases where it might not apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the two analysis steps and that findings are combined, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what prerequisites are needed (e.g., both debuggers connected), or how failures are handled. This is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise, using two sentences to convey the tool's purpose, the two analysis methods, and the return type. Every word adds value with no unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks an output schema and annotations, so it must explain return values. It only says 'Returns combined findings,' which is vague and does not describe the structure or content of the findings. It also omits prerequisites such as whether both debuggers must be active. This is incomplete for a tool of moderate complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the schema covers 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs cross-debugger bossix detection, combining IDA Pro static scanning for anti-debug APIs and an x64dbg dynamic PEB check. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ida_scan_bossix by explicitly mentioning both debuggers and 'combined findings'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'cross-debugger bossix detection' implies the tool is used when both static and dynamic analysis are needed, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool executes the cdb '|' command, which is a simple read-only operation. However, it does not describe behavior under error conditions (e.g., no active session), return format, or any side effects. For a simple listing, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and adds a clarifying parenthetical with the underlying command. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), but the description does not explain what the output contains (e.g., process IDs, names, exit codes). It is minimal but arguably sufficient for an agent to infer the return from a process listing. However, given the lack of output schema and annotations, a bit more detail on expected results would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage with an empty properties object. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but it does clarify the session context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List processes in the current debugger session'. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('processes'), and the parenthetical '(cdb '|')' uniquely identifies the underlying command, distinguishing it from sibling tools like windbg_list_modules or windbg_list_threads.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'in the current debugger session' provides clear context for when the tool is applicable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is sufficiently defined. Sibling tools with different purposes make the context clear enough, though no direct comparison is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 regex filtering and max_lines cap, but doesn't mention potential side effects of running arbitrary commands, the synchronous blocking nature, timeout behavior, or the existence of an async sibling. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive raw command runner.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by key modifiers. No wasted words or redundant schema repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mildly insufficient. It doesn't describe the return format, how output is structured, or the relationship to windbg_run_command_async. However, the schema covers parameters well, and the description gives enough to select and invoke the tool for simple cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions already cover all 12 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explicitly explaining the purpose of the regex filter ('keeps only matching lines') and max_lines ('caps noisy output'), which helps the agent understand the tool's main filtering capabilities beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs an arbitrary cdb/WinDbg command verbatim, distinguishing it from specialized debugger tools and from the sibling windbg_run_command_async. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'arbitrary cdb/WinDbg command' implies it is the general-purpose raw command runner, appropriate when a dedicated sibling tool (e.g., disassemble, read_memory) doesn't fit. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it's clear 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.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly details the patches applied (zero BeingDebugged, clear NtGlobalFlag, x64dbg built-in hide), giving concrete behavioral insight. It does not mention side effects or reversibility, but the core destructive actions are well disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and provides essential technical details. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter utility, the description is sufficiently complete, covering what it does and how. The existence of an output schema fills in return-value details. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., must be attached to a debuggee), but given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but that is acceptable since no parameters need explanation. The schema itself covers the empty parameter set fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Hide') and resource ('debugger via PEB patches'), and enumerates concrete techniques ('zero BeingDebugged, clear NtGlobalFlag, x64dbg built-in hide'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bossix_scan or bossix_patch while making the tool's function immediately obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage in anti-debugging contexts but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or references to alternatives. It does not state when not to use it or mention prerequisites, which is a gap for a tool that manipulates process internals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral detail: it flips conditional jumps, NOPs test/cmp, and replaces CALL with xor eax,eax. It does not mention side effects such as persistence or preconditions, but the disclosed logic goes beyond simple 'patch' and helps the agent understand what will happen.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loads the purpose, and wastes no words. It packs meaningful behavioral details into a compact format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for the tool's complexity, given the detailed schema and output schema. It explains the patch selection logic but omits potential side effects (e.g., whether the patch affects the IDB or disk), which would improve completeness slightly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: both parameters have detailed descriptions, including an explicit warning about the 0x prefix for address. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: 'Auto-patch a bossix check at an address.' It specifies the resource (bossix check) and the action (auto-patch), and differentiates from sibling tools like ida_patch_bytes by describing the automatic patch-selection logic based on instruction type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: use this for bossix checks where the patch type can be automatically determined. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the specialized nature and the contrast with generic patch tools (ida_patch_bytes) is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 imparts that this is a raw, low-level operation and should be used sparingly, but it does not detail side effects, potential hazards, or error behavior. The warning implies caution without concrete behavioral specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with usage constraints, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema available, the return format is covered. The description sufficiently frames the tool as an escape hatch within a large family of specialized debugging tools, and the usage guidance explains when to fall back to it. Minor gaps remain about potential risks, but these are hinted at by 'raw' and 'sparingly'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'command' parameter, with a description and examples already provided. The tool description only restates 'raw x64dbg command' without adding new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Execute a raw x64dbg command' with the specific verb and resource. The additional phrase 'ESCAPE HATCH for operations not covered by other tools' distinguishes it from the many specific sibling tools, making its scope unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance is provided: 'USE SPARINGLY — prefer the dedicated tool when one exists' and 'not covered by other tools'. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and when to avoid it, naming the alternative behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the important side effect of updating the agent's current_rip context, which is a behavioral trait beyond merely reading registers. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation (never writes to the target), though it doesn't explicitly mention potential limitations such as architecture or mode.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second adds a meaningful side effect. No wasted words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the register scope (GPRs, flags, RIP/RSP) and the context update side effect. It doesn't mention target architecture or debugger mode, but that is likely covered by the output schema or environment context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is effectively complete. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all CPU registers, enumerating GPRs, flags, and RIP/RSP. The side effect of updating the agent's current_rip context adds specificity and distinguishes it from other register-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: the tool is for fetching all CPU registers and updating the agent's context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives like windbg_registers or set_register, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
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 what the comparison includes (disasm, instruction count, size delta) and the intended use case. While it doesn't explicitly state side effects or error behavior, the read-only nature of 'compare' is implied, and the added output details are valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outputs, followed by a practical application. Every word earns its place with no repetition or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficient for the tool's simple scope. It communicates the purpose, the inputs, and the nature of the result. It doesn't cover edge cases (e.g., invalid addresses), but those are common to IDA tools and not critical for a compare utility.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% ('Address or name of the first/second function'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond confirming the input are functions, which is already clear from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Compare two functions side-by-side' and specifies the comparison dimensions ('disasm, instruction count, size delta'). This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from other analysis tools in the sibling list, such as ida_disassemble or ida_analyze_function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'Useful for spotting obfuscation differences or comparing similar routines.' This tells the agent when to apply the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the side effect (writes to IDA database, not original file) and the underlying API (idc.patch_byte()). It could add more about prerequisites or reversibility, but for a simple mutation tool it is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each earning its place: action, key clarification (no file modification), and use case. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, effect, and typical use. It could mention the need for an active IDA session or how to verify patches (e.g., ida_list_patches), but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (address, hex_bytes). The description adds only a minor detail about using idc.patch_byte() and does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Write bytes'), the resource ('IDA database at an address'), and the implementation ('using idc.patch_byte()'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does NOT modify the original file, only the database, making it unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a clear use case ('Useful for NOP-ing bossix checks found by ida_scan_bossix'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., bossix_patch exists as a sibling), so it stops short of full alternative differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that it runs raw IDAPython code, which implies arbitrary side effects, but it does not explicitly mention risks like database modification, IDA crashes, or that output comes via print(). The schema param description adds print guidance. Overall, the core behavior is disclosed but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, immediately states the action and scope, with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema adequately explains how to invoke the tool. A warning about side effects would improve completeness, but it's not required for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the only parameter 'code' with 100% coverage, describing what to provide, how to get output, and what modules to import. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Execute' and the resource 'raw IDAPython code inside IDA Pro'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as an 'escape hatch' for uncovered operations, which is an explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Escape hatch for any operation not covered by other tools' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: as a fallback when specialized tools are insufficient. This is superior to no guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden and does so well by disclosing the orchestration across WinDbg and IDA Pro and the combined report output. It does not disclose potential side effects like IDA database modifications or environment prerequisites, but the described pipeline and return value are sufficiently transparent for most operational purposes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and every phrase adds value: the pipeline steps, the destination tools, and the output contents are all specified without filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a cross-tool pipeline and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the workflow and explicitly states the return report contents. It could be more complete with prerequisites or failure behavior, but for a one-parameter tool, the essential context is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes dump_path as 'Full path to the .dmp crash dump file', and the description's mention of 'open a .dmp' aligns with that. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies a multi-step crash analysis pipeline with specific actions: opening a .dmp in WinDbg, extracting the crashing address, pivoting to IDA Pro, decompiling the crashing function, and showing callers. This differentiates the tool from single-purpose siblings like windbg_analyze_crash or ida_decompile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Full crash analysis pipeline' establishes clear context for when to use the tool: when a complete end-to-end crash investigation is needed. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative one-off tools, but the workflow description itself implies the tool's role relative to more granular siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important behavioral trait of automatically flagging RWX regions, which is beyond a simple map retrieval. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., active process) or any side effects, though these are not critical for a read-only 'get' operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a notable feature. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no parameters, has output schema), and the description covers its main function and key feature. It doesn't explicitly state it operates on the current debuggee, but given the debugger context and no parameters, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the domain (virtual memory map) but there are no parameter details to clarify. The schema is trivially complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the process virtual memory map' – a specific verb and resource. It also highlights a key feature (flagging RWX regions) that distinguishes it from generic memory tools like read_memory or search_memory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need to inspect the process memory layout), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or describe how it compares to sibling tools. No alternatives are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses atomicity and the line-separated format, but omits error behavior, side effects, or whether a debug target is required. The example adds context but not comprehensive behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence followed by an illustrative example. No redundant words; the structure is direct and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core essentials (action, format, atomicity) and provides an example. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but the output schema and sibling context fill some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented. However, the description adds a concrete example showing how to format commands, which goes beyond the schema's generic description and helps the agent construct valid scripts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Execute a multi-line x64dbg script' and highlights atomic execution. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_command or ida_run_script, which likely target single commands or other environments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The atomic, multi-line nature implies when to use this tool (batch of commands needing to run together), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like execute_command or mention preconditions (e.g., debugger must be active).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides meaningful behavioral context: searches across all tool outputs and returns sessions. It does not disclose exact matching semantics or return format, but for a search tool this is adequate and adds value beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is immediately clear and free of unnecessary information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter search tool, the description effectively communicates what the tool does and what it searches. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the implied result (all matching sessions). Minor gap: no mention of return format or search semantics, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the single parameter, including an example format. The description repeats no parameter details, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is highly specific with a clear verb ('Find') and resource ('sessions'), stating the exact filter (hex address in any tool output). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like session_find_function by focusing on hex addresses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the use case: searching sessions for a hex address. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear given the tool name and its focus on addresses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The term 'stats' strongly implies a read-only query operation, and the description discloses the kind of data returned (totals, most-used tools, most-analyzed targets). However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor does it hint at performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Global MCO stats') and then lists the specific metrics. It is succinct, with no wasted words, and each metric adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the high-level content of the results. It could be more explicit about the exact return format or how it differs from session_summary, but given its simplicity, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, leaving no parameter semantics to explain. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly says nothing about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as providing 'Global MCO stats' and enumerates specific aggregates: 'total sessions, total tool calls, most used tools, most analyzed targets.' It distinguishes itself from sibling session_* tools by emphasizing 'Global' scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'Global' implies use for cross-session overview, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of session_summary or other session-specific tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is a break/pause (via Ctrl+Break), but it lacks details on side effects, prerequisites, or what happens after the break. It's adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first states the action, second provides the usage context. Every word earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the key verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly. It could be slightly more explicit about requiring an active debugging session, but it is not a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter explanation in the description. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Break into' and identifies the resource 'a running target', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like continue, stop, and step. It also mentions the keyboard shortcut (Ctrl+Break) which adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the program is executing and you need to pause it.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool resumes execution, returns on specific events, and auto-breaks on timeout for recovery. This important behavioral context goes beyond the schema, though it omits state prerequisites like requiring the target to be paused.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and returning conditions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose, return conditions, and timeout safety net. It lacks a note about whether the target must be paused before continuing, and there is no output schema, but the main usage context is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'timeout' parameter, which already has a clear description ('Seconds before auto-break'). The description's mention of auto-break on timeout reinforces but does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Resume execution') with the specific cdb command 'g', and details return conditions (breakpoint, exception, or exit). This distinguishes it from stepping or run-to tools, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: it blocks until a breakpoint, exception, or exit, and the timeout auto-break allows recovery. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like windbg_go or windbg_continue_async, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's composite behavior by listing the specific diagnostic components included. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only nature), performance, or output format, which are relevant for a crash analysis tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a clear usage recommendation. No wasted words; every part adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a composite tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the specific analyses performed. It could be improved by stating the output format, but the listed components imply the return contents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. The description adds context by indicating what the tool does without needing parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Full crash triage in one call' followed by the concrete components (!analyze -v, registers, call stack, exception record, fault address context). This distinguishes it from more focused sibling tools like windbg_call_stack or windbg_registers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Offers explicit timing guidance: 'Best first tool after hitting a crash.' This clarifies when to use it as the initial triage step. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear and strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly mentions the underlying cdb 'ub' command, which is a helpful behavioral detail. It also implicitly conveys a read-only nature with no side effects. No contradictions or safety concerns are left unaddressed for this simple disassembly operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a brief rationale. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters, the description is sufficient. It explains what, why, and mentions the underlying command. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the tool's purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: count and address are both described. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing the 'before' direction, which is already inherent in the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Disassemble N instructions BEFORE an address.' It clearly distinguishes from the likely forward-disassembly sibling (windbg_disassemble) by emphasizing the backward direction and the usefulness for seeing what led to the current IP.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Useful for seeing what led to the current IP' provides a clear use case, implying when to choose this over forward disassembly or other inspection tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe what the output contains, which is useful, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the target must be stopped at an exception), side effects, or error conditions. This is a reasonable but incomplete disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that lists all relevant details without any filler. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior. It could additionally note that it requires a live debugging session or an active exception context, but the core purpose is clearly and completely stated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema already confirms no parameters. No gaps here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('full exception chain'), and enumerates the exact components included (last event, exception record, context, stack at exception, SEH chain). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_call_stack or windbg_analyze_crash.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is for inspecting the exception chain, which is a distinct use case. It does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it when exception chain details are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states it performs a search (read-only implied) and maps to a known cdb command, which is useful. Yet it does not disclose output format, potential for large result sets, or error behavior for malformed patterns. The description adds context but not comprehensive detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the essential purpose and immediately followed by a pattern example. There is no wasted text or redundancy with the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter search tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what it does, the pattern syntax, and the underlying command. It does not describe the return format, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is sufficient for selection and basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the 'pattern' parameter, but the description adds a supplementary pattern format example ('mod!*func*') that reinforces and clarifies the schema's own example. This goes beyond simply restating the parameter, adding meaningful wildcard syntax context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource: symbols by pattern across modules, with the underlying cdb 'x' command. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like windbg_address_to_symbol (exact address lookup) and windbg_list_modules (module enumeration).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: this is for finding symbols via wildcard patterns, not for exact address resolution. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The example 'mod!*func*' provides practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: non-blocking and no break-in. The word 'drain' also implies the buffer is consumed, which is a valuable side-effect. While it doesn't cover empty-buffer or error states, the critical behavioral traits are communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core action and then the two key constraints, with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description sufficiently explains the tool's core purpose and behavior. No output schema exists, but the return value (buffered lines) is implied. The parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the summary description doesn't need to repeat them. It could mention prerequisites like an active debugger session, but that is generally implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 8 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides complete meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific action ('Drain') and resource ('currently buffered cdb output'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it operates 'without blocking and without sending break-in.' This makes its purpose unmistakable relative to other windbg tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: when you want to read buffered output non-blockingly and without interrupting the debuggee. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the behavioral constraints give strong usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the crucial non-blocking behavior ('return immediately without waiting for a prompt and without break-in') and the need to retrieve output later. It does not mention failure modes or queueing details, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, with the first stating the action and key behavior and the second providing the necessary next steps. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter async command tool, the description is largely complete: it covers the action, the async behavior, and the follow-up required to obtain output. It does not specify the exact return value or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, it is sufficiently contextual.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter 'command' described as 'Raw cdb command to send'. The tool description repeats 'raw cdb command' but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Send a raw cdb command' and identifies the tool's async nature by stating it returns immediately without waiting for a prompt or break-in. It also distinguishes this tool from the synchronous sibling by pointing to windbg_wait_for_event/read_output as follow-up actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs the agent to use windbg_wait_for_event/read_output afterward, establishing a clear workflow. It does not directly contrast with the synchronous windbg_run_command, but the absence of wait/break-in implies its use case for non-blocking command dispatch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the actions: 'dps slot, nearest symbol, and disassembly at poi(slot)', which implies a read-only inspection. It does not mention side effects, but the listed operations clearly indicate non-mutating behavior, adding useful context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the precise outputs. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: it specifies the slot, the symbol lookup, and the disassembly at the return address. While it does not define 'poi', the context is sufficient for an agent familiar with debugger conventions. Slightly more detail about the return format could make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'index' and 'disasm_count'. The description adds only minor context (e.g., poi(slot) implies the return address is dereferenced from the slot), but does not significantly exceed what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb 'Resolve' and resource 'one shadow stack return slot', clearly indicating a targeted operation on a single slot. It further details the three resolution outputs (dps, nearest symbol, disassembly), distinguishing it from sibling tools like windbg_shadow_stack which lists all slots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'one shadow stack return slot' implies this tool is for inspecting a single slot in detail, versus siblings like windbg_shadow_stack that handle the full stack. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavior: 'The target starts SUSPENDED at the initial breakpoint' and explicitly points to the continuation tool. This is valuable context that goes beyond the schema, though it omits other potential side effects like process lifetime or output handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long: the first states the purpose, the second provides the critical behavioral detail. There is no redundant or filler content, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple launch tool with two parameters, the description sufficiently covers the essential context: what it does, the suspended state, and the required next step. It doesn't mention whether the call blocks or returns immediately, but the sibling tools like windbg_wait_for_event and windbg_continue fill that gap. The description is adequate for the core workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers both parameters (exe and args) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Launch a Windows executable under cdb.' The verb 'launch' and resource 'executable' are specific, and this distinguishes it from siblings like windbg_attach (attaching to an existing process) and windbg_open_dump (opening a dump file).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context by explaining that the target starts SUSPENDED at the initial breakpoint and instructs the agent to use windbg_continue to run it. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the behavior and follow-up action are clear, and the sibling list makes the differentiation obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary effect (quit session, release target), adding 'release the target' as extra context. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether the target process is terminated or if unsaved state is lost, which would be useful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence (8 words) that front-loads the action. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless, no-output tool, the description is adequately complete. It explains what the tool does and the effect on the target, though it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., active session) or potential error states, which would round out completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Per guidance, 0 params merits a baseline of 4. The description has no parameter explanations to provide, and none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Quit') and resource ('cdb session') and adds 'release the target,' which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like windbg_break_in or windbg_continue. It unambiguously states the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (ending a debugging session) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as windbg_break_in (pause) or windbg_continue (resume), nor mention preconditions like an active session. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 describes a read-only operation via 'Show', but does not explicitly state that it doesn't modify state, nor does it mention output format, potential need for a running target, or performance considerations. The command syntax adds some transparency but leaves behavioral details implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, with the first sentence stating the core function and the second adding practical context. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the essential action. The mention of race condition/UAF provides usage context. Missing details like output formatting or prerequisites are minor since the operation is a simple read of all thread call stacks.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The description adds no param-specific information, but none is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Show' and resource 'call stacks for ALL threads', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like windbg_call_stack which targets a single thread. The inclusion of the underlying command 'cdb ~* kP' further clarifies the exact operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use it ('Essential for race condition / UAF analysis'), and the emphasis on 'ALL threads simultaneously' implies when to prefer this over single-thread alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the key behavior: waits for output/prompt and does NOT break in on timeout. This is a crucial differentiation for an async debugger tool. It stops short of explaining return format or timeout side effects, but the core non-disruptive behavior is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and followed by a direct usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 11-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is surprisingly sufficient. It identifies the exact asynchronous workflow context and the critical timeout behavior. The rich parameter schema covers the filtering and output options. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit statement about what the tool returns (e.g., matched event lines), but the parameter names and descriptions make this inferable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra parameter information, but all 11 parameters already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not need to repeat them, but it also does not add usage context for the more complex filtering parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Wait for output/prompt from an async command.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it avoids sending break-in on timeout, and references windbg_continue_async as its intended predecessor. This makes the tool's role clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Use after windbg_continue_async' gives a clear, explicit usage context. The comment about not sending break-in on timeout further signals when this is appropriate, though no explicit alternatives or 'when not to use' distinctions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It transparently explains the two-step behavior (find strings, then list referencing functions) and notes case-insensitivity via the schema. It does not mention potential performance implications or scope, but these are not critical for this straightforward read-only tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first defines the functional flow, the second gives practical examples. No wasted words, effectively front-loaded, and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the wealth of context from sibling tools, the description is complete enough. It explains exactly what the tool does and what the agent can expect, without needing to detail return formats.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema parameter description already includes the pattern syntax, case-insensitivity, and examples. The tool description adds similar examples but does not meaningfully extend the schema's explanation, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Find all strings matching a regex pattern, then for each string list every function that references it.' This distinguishes it from siblings like ida_strings (just lists strings) and ida_xrefs_to (xrefs to a given address) by combining regex search with reference discovery.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear use cases ('Great for finding where 'admin', 'password', 'cmd.exe', or C2 URLs are used') which implies when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context and sibling tool names make the appropriate usage evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately portrays a read-only listing operation and specifies the included fields, but it does not mention potential edge cases like empty results or error behavior. For a simple parameterless query, this is sufficient and adds clear value over the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose and output, making it an example of concise and effective writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description provides essential information: the resource (segments), scope (all), and output content (addresses and permissions). This is sufficient to understand what the tool returns and when to invoke it, meeting the needs of an agent without further elaboration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, as confirmed by the empty input schema. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for parameter semantics is 4 when no parameters exist, so no additional information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'binary segments' with concrete examples (.text, .data, .rdata) and output fields (addresses, permissions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling IDA tools like ida_names or ida_entry_points, none of which focus on segment enumeration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving segment information when needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on exclusions or relationships to sibling tools, leaving usage context to be inferred from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a critical dependency (private symbols) but does not describe behavior in the absence of symbols or other potential failure modes. It is functional but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a crucial requirement in a parenthetical. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless tool, the description provides the essential purpose and a key prerequisite. With no output schema and no complexity to explain, this is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter details, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Show') and the resource ('local variables of the current frame'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_registers or windbg_call_stack. The parenthetical about private symbols adds a key qualifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you need to inspect local variables of the current frame, and the 'requires private symbols' note is a clear precondition. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the core behavior (run until function return) and references the cdb command ('gu'), but it does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether breakpoints will interrupt execution, or any output behavior. This leaves some room for agent uncertainty, though the operation is relatively simple.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential meaning efficiently. Every word earns its place, and the addition of the cdb command provides useful cross-reference without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless debugging control operation, the description is complete. It fully specifies what the tool does, and given the lack of output schema and simple input schema, no further detail is required. The tool's place among sibling stepping tools is clear from the name and description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds the cdb command reference, which is useful context but not parameter-related. No further parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Run') and resource ('the current function returns'), with a specific scope. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like windbg_step_in and windbg_step_over by explicitly defining step-out behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to execute until the current function returns. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavior is unambiguous. Sibling tool names (step_in, step_over) imply alternatives, so the guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context about pointer dereference syntax and performance, but it does not explicitly state whether evaluation is read-only, what happens on invalid expressions, or whether there are any side effects. For a debugger expression evaluator, more transparency about error behavior would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds new information: the operation, the types of expressions, and a practical usage tip with performance benefit. There is no redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, expression types, and gives a usage tip. However, it does not mention potential error cases or limitations (e.g., expression syntax constraints), which would make it more robust. Still, the provided information is sufficient for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'expression', including examples. The description adds extra value by explaining the '[address]' syntax and that it reads a QWORD at RSP, which is not fully captured in the schema. This enriches the semantic understanding beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool evaluates an x64dbg expression, and specifies the types of expressions it resolves (API names, registers, arithmetic, pointer dereferences). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_memory by positioning it as an expression evaluator and explicitly comparing it to read_memory for single values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit usage alternative: 'This is faster than read_memory for single values.' This tells the agent when to prefer this tool over read_memory, and the TIP about '[address]' syntax gives a concrete usage example. It clearly indicates the context for using this tool versus a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly enumerates the four pieces of state returned, implying a read-only, side-effect-free operation. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything,' but the verb 'Show' and the nature of the data make that clear. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a colon and a list of four specific items. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description completely covers what the tool reports by listing all four data points. The only minor gap is that 'async age' lacks a unit (e.g., seconds), but this does not materially hinder use of a simple status inspection tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so 100% schema coverage is trivial. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none to describe.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and names a precise resource ('MCP-side debugger I/O state'), then lists concrete fields (active cdb PID, buffered output lines, async command, async age). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_status, which presumably reports debugger status rather than MCP-side I/O state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'MCP-side' provides clear context that this is for inspecting the MCP's internal I/O pipeline, not the target process or debugger state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scoping is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it over similar status tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses the core behavior: executing exactly one instruction and stepping into calls. It also references the underlying cdb command 't', adding useful context. It does not describe potential side effects, but for a simple step-in control this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that uses every word effectively. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Single-step one instruction') and adds the essential qualifier ('stepping INTO calls').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple control tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the exact debugger action and the underlying command. The agent can rely on sibling tools to inspect state afterward, so no further details are required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, which is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Single-step one instruction, stepping INTO calls (cdb 't')'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like windbg_step_over and windbg_step_out by explicitly indicating 'stepping INTO calls'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when the agent wants to step into a called function, contrasting with step-over/step-out. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
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 that the tool returns the agent's current context including state like breakpoints and goal. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-freedom or performance characteristics. Still, for a simple context getter, this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence defining what the tool returns and one sentence on usage. Every word earns its place, and the 'USE WHEN' guidance is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, output schema present), the description sufficiently captures the tool's purpose and content. It lists all major context elements and the usage scenario, making it complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so parameter semantics are moot. Per baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'agent's current debugging context', and enumerates the concrete contents: target process, current RIP, breakpoints, discovered functions, found patterns, current goal. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_status or ida_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an explicit 'USE WHEN' clause: 'you need to know what the agent already knows before deciding next steps'. This provides clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It uses the read-only verb 'Get' and enumerates what is returned, making the read-only nature clear. However, it does not disclose potential caveats (e.g., whether a process must be attached, or if the call could be expensive), which would add depth. Still, for a read-oriented tool, it is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence followed by a crisp usage directive. It wastes no words, front-loads the core purpose, and every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It gives a clear high-level overview and explicit guidance on when to invoke it, making it fully sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to clarify parameter meanings. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing what the output covers, complementing the (empty) input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'process info', then lists specific components (main module, base address, entry point, threads, PEB). This distinguishes it from more narrowly scoped sibling tools like windbg_peb or get_threads, which focus on a single aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage context: 'USE WHEN: starting analysis — typically the first call to orient yourself.' This tells the agent when to use it, but does not mention exclusions or explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently states that it does not install a timeout and never sends break-in, which are critical behavioral traits for a debugger control tool. It does not mention every consequence, but the key caveats are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, with the core action in the first sentence and important caveats in the second. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it does (resume), that it is asynchronous, and two key behavioral constraints (no timeout, no break-in). This is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the rich sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuous). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter meaning to clarify. The mention of 'cdb g' is not a parameter but the underlying command implementation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Resume execution with cdb 'g'' which identifies the specific action and resource, and 'return immediately' clarifies the async behavior. This distinguishes it from synchronous alternatives like windbg_continue or windbg_go.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'return immediately' clearly implies this tool is for fire-and-forget execution where the caller does not need to wait for a breakpoint or timeout. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficiently clear for selecting this over synchronous continue/step commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns an orientation cheatsheet covering workflow, concepts, address forms, and timeout semantics. It does not explicitly state 'read-only/no side effects', but the nature of a cheatsheet and the absence of any mutating language make the behavior sufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a targeted usage recommendation. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a help/orientation tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the cheatsheet contains, when to call it, and its role relative to the broader toolset. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool’s content rather than parameter syntax.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('quick orientation cheatsheet for this MCP'), clearly distinguishing it from the many action-oriented windbg_* tools. It lists concrete content areas (workflow, key concepts, address forms, timeout semantics), making the purpose highly unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly provides an when-to-use instruction: 'Call this first if you are unsure how to drive the debugger.' While it doesn't mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the recommendation is clear enough given this is a unique help/orientation tool among its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses the core behavior: single-step and skip over function calls (equivalent to the 'p' command in cdb). It does not mention additional details like whether it will stop on exceptions or interrupts, but for a simple stepping operation, the essential trait is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-crafted sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes a useful parenthetical reference to the underlying command. Every word adds value, with no wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema), this one-line description is fully sufficient to convey what the tool does and how it differs from related tools. It aligns with the sibling naming conventions and provides the necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter documentation needed. The description correctly focuses on the operation itself, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Single-step one instruction, stepping OVER calls'. It uses a specific verb ('step-over') and resource (one instruction), and the parenthetical '(cdb 'p')' provides a familiar debugger command equivalent. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like windbg_step_in and windbg_step_out.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you want to step one instruction without diving into called functions. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of step_in', but the phrase 'stepping OVER calls' provides clear context. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance beyond the implication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
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 explains that the tool resolves register names, API addresses, arithmetic, and pointer dereferences, and that it directly sends a command to the x64dbg plugin. This gives the agent a clear understanding of its behavior, though it does not mention any potential side effects or prerequisites beyond the x64dbg connection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, explains the mechanism, lists supported expression types, and closes with usage guidance and examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and provides examples. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description does not need to explain them. The tool's complexity is low, and the description fully addresses the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers the 'expression' parameter at 100%, but the description adds valuable extra context by providing additional examples and clarifying the expression format (e.g., '[rsp+0x28]'). This goes beyond what the schema provides, so it earns a 4 rather than a baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool evaluates a debugger expression and returns a numeric result. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it sends the eval_expression command directly to the x64dbg plugin, and provides concrete examples. The verb 'Evaluate' plus resource 'debugger expression' 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes an explicit 'USE WHEN' section, telling the agent when to use this tool: to resolve a symbol address or compute a pointer value. It implies this is for x64dbg context (versus windbg or generic tools) but does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, so it's not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The term 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and listing the specific data points (connection status, process state, bridge info) makes the behavior transparent. It lacks explicit safety statements, but for a status query this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it lists exactly what is returned. There is no redundant wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know. It specifies the three types of information returned, and the output schema can handle the details. No additional context is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. There is nothing to explain beyond the schema, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly focuses on the output content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves x64dbg connection status, process state, and bridge info. It uses a specific verb (Get) and explicitly identifies the resource (x64dbg), distinguishing it from sibling status tools like windbg_status or ida_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this is for checking x64dbg status, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. However, the tool name and scope make the intended use obvious, so it qualifies as clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: hardware breakpoints cause 'no code modification', API breakpoints need 'no need to resolve address', conditional breakpoints can use 'log format string instead of breaking', and set_hw is 'useful when scanning for INT3'. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not explicitly state that software breakpoints modify code, but this is implied by the contrast with hardware breakpoints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description opens with a clear one-line purpose, then uses a structured 'USE X for Y' format to convey usage efficiently. Every sentence provides actionable guidance without redundancy, and it remains compact despite covering many modes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an 8-parameter tool with multiple modes and an output schema, the description covers the main use cases and explicitly contrasts with the closest sibling (breakpoint_on_api_group). It leaves a minor gap in how deletion identifies the target breakpoint (no breakpoint ID parameter is mentioned), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., api works only with action='set'), giving concrete examples (e.g., condition 'rcx == 0x1000', log format 'VirtualAlloc(size={rdx}, prot={r9:x})'), and clarifying the action meanings. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets, lists, or deletes breakpoints and lists supported types (software, hardware, memory, conditional, API-by-name). This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like breakpoint_on_api_group, which is explicitly called out.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each action (USE 'set' WITH 'api', USE 'set_conditional', USE 'set_hw', USE 'list') and names an alternative for bulk API groups (breakpoint_on_api_group instead). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful details like 'Returns ALL fields' and 'anti-debug flag analysis,' which go beyond the tool name. It does not mention target process context or potential side effects, but these are less critical for a read-only getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Get FULL PEB dump') and no filler. Every word adds value, including the sibling comparison.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and no parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, output scope, and usage guidance. However, it could mention the target process (implicitly the current debuggee) or the nature of the anti-debug analysis to be fully self-contained. Given the rich context from sibling tools and output schema, it's nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, with no additional context required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get FULL PEB dump with anti-debug flag analysis' and explicitly contrasts with 'process_info', making its purpose and differentiation clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit guidance: 'Use process_info for a quick overview; use this for deep PEB inspection,' telling the agent when to choose this tool over a specific alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DdUdle/ctxdebug'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server